Tag Archive for: neutrality

No, BitTorrent’s Plan for Cryptocurrency-Fueled Speed Boosts Doesn’t Violate ‘Net Neutrality’

For a subject we’ve been collectively discussing ad nauseum for the better part of two decades, it’s kind of astounding how many people still don’t really understand how net neutrality works.

Case in point: last week, BitTorrent (or what’s left of it under new owner TRON) announced yet another business model revision, stating it would be integrating cryptocurrency into their BitTorrent platform. One of the goals of this “Project Atlas” is to develop a system that would financially-reward folks who seed files. TRON put the project plan this way:

“The new token, also called BitTorrent (BTT), will be issued by BitTorrent Foundation, established in Singapore and will enable users to exchange tokens to improve network speed. By providing users with the ability to use BTT tokens for faster downloads, the company aims to accelerate the overall speed of torrents. “BitTorrent token is the first in a series of steps to support a decentralized internet,” said Justin Sun, founder of TRON and CEO of BitTorrent. “In one giant leap, the BitTorrent client can introduce blockchain to hundreds of millions of users around the world and empower a new generation of content creators with the tools to distribute their content directly to others on the web.”

Whether the blockchain can magically somehow make BitTorrent a sustainable business (a decade long quest at this point) is a subject for another day. More interesting to me was some of the reaction to TRON’s announcement, including this piece over at TorrentFreak attempting to paint BitTorrent as a hypocrite for advocating for net neutrality, then itself embracing “fast lanes” on the internet:

“While details are scarce, it’s clear that with the BTT token users will be able to pay to speed up their downloads. It’s not clear how this will work, but it’s likely that a paying downloader will get priority over others. That sounds a bit like a “fast lane” and paid “prioritization,” albeit on a different scale. Large companies are not paying for faster access in this case, but ‘wealthy’ BitTorrent users are.

TorrentFreak asked both TRON and BitTorrent about their thoughts on this Net Neutrality argument and if it presents a problem. The TRON team said that it couldn’t comment on the matter, while BitTorrent didn’t respond at all.

The difference here is that users can choose to use another BitTorrent client if they’re not happy with what BitTorrent is doing. That’s not the case for broadband, where the lion’s share of Americans only have access to one ISP at speeds of 25 Mbps or greater. Net neutrality violations are just a symptom of this limited competition, which lets giant telecom operators like AT&T or Comcast abuse their roles as natural monopolies. Net neutrality rules were simply a telecom-specific stopgap measure until somebody, anybody, is willing to actually challenge these companies politically and embrace real, pro-competitive policies.

Somehow, people take this telecom-specific paradigm and weirdly try to casually apply it to other sectors, as TorrentFreak does here. You’ll often see the same mistake made when folks like Mark Cuban call for “search neutrality” or “app neutrality.” Again, you can generally choose to not use a social media website or app store if you’re not happy with the business decisions they’re making. You can’t do that in telecom. That’s why net neutrality is a concept specific only to broadband and the lack of competition there that’s plagued consumers for the better part of two decades. In broadband, users often have no other choice.

That’s not to say there aren’t valid criticisms for what TRON is doing here. But again, you can’t call this a net neutrality violation because the term applies specifically to core telecom networks, not software platforms where users have the option of numerous other clients. The monopoly-dominated dance of dysfunction in telecom is a very unique animal, resulting in the creation of a very unique term in “net neutrality.” It can’t just be thrown about casually every time you see someone engaging in dubious behavior. That’s not how any of this works.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

FCC Boss Celebrates As Net Neutrality Gets An End Date: June 11

Nearly six months after the FCC voted to kill net neutrality protections, we finally have an official date for the formal elimination of the rules. According to an FCC announcement, (pdf) the FCC’s comically-misleading-named “Restoring Internet Freedom” order will formally take effect on June 11, eliminating rules that have the bipartisan support of a huge majority of Americans (not to mention many of the people that built the damn internet).

In a statement patting himself on the back for a job well done, FCC boss Ajit Pai simply doubles down on all of the routinely-debunked falsehoods his agency has used to justify the repeal up to this point, including the claim that killing consumer protections and pandering to Comcast somehow lowers prices and protects “free expression”:

“On June 11, we will have a framework in place that encourages innovation and investment in our nation’s networks so that all Americans, no matter where they live, can have access to better, cheaper, and faster Internet access and the jobs, opportunities, and platform for free expression that it provides.”

Of course if you’ve been following the net neutrality fight this claim is laughable. Giving telecom monopolies operating in a broken market unchecked authority to abuse a lack of competition will raise rates and stifle free expression in a myriad of ways. From bogus usage caps and zero rating to interconnection shenanigans (where ISPs use their power to drive up costs for transit and content competitors), these costs and unfair restrictions, sooner or later, will be dropped in the lap of consumers and smaller competitors alike.

Meanwhile, Pai also tries to double down on the claim that next-generation networks are only made possible by gutting oversight of some of the least-liked and least-competitive companies in America. He also tries to float the idea that “special interests” (not an overwhelming, bipartisan majority of Americans) are to blame for the massive backlash to his repeal:

“And we will embrace a modern, forward-looking approach that will help the United States lead the world in 5G, the next generation of wireless connectivity. For months, many politicians and special interests have tried to mislead the American people about the Restoring Internet Freedom Order. Now everyone will be able to see the truth for themselves.”

Yes, yes we will.

Unfortunately, starting in late June, ISPs, the Pai FCC, and the industry’s dollar-per-hollar consultants are going to try to argue that because the Earth didn’t immediately shatter into a million pieces on June 12 it must mean that the net neutrality rules weren’t important. But anybody expecting ISPs like Comcast to immediately begin behaving badly in the wake of the repeal doesn’t understand how this is going to work.

ISPs are going to try and be on their best behavior for a while, even after the rules are repealed. Why? They’re wisely concerned that the FCC may lose in court, thanks to all of the bizarre missteps Pai’s office made during the repeal. They’re also worried about the fact that more than half the states in the nation are now pursuing their own net neutrality rules (something they maybe should have considered before rushing to kill modest federal rules).

Of course there’s also the looming threat of a future less cash-compromised Congress or FCC coming in and just re-instating the rules during future administrations.

This is why ISPs have been advocating (so far unsuccessfully) for a bogus net neutrality law in Congress. Pushed by Marsha Blackburn in the House and John Kennedy in the Senate, these bills are being promoted as a “solution” to the longstanding net neutrality debate. But their real intention is far more nefarious: to pass a flimsy, loophole-ridden law designed specifically to pre-empt tougher federal or state laws (and block the FCC from restoring the 2015 rules should they lose in court). In short: they want to make a lack of net neutrality permanent via legislation that…pretends to protect net neutrality (AT&T, Verizon and Comcast lobbyists are nothing if not clever).

As ISP lobbyists nervously try to prevent a return to real net neutrality rules, ISPs will try to be on their best behavior for a while to try to suggest all of the concerns about the repeal were breathless hyperbole. But it’s important to understand, killing net neutrality is just one part of a much broader plan that involves effectively gutting nearly all FTC and FCC oversight of the broken telecom sector. Should that come to pass (and they’re having a hell of a lot of success at the moment), the end result is not going to be subtle.

Permalink | Comments | Email This Story

Techdirt.

2 million people—and some dead ones—were impersonated in net neutrality comments

Enlarge / An analysis from New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman. (credit: New York Attorney General’s office)

An analysis of public comments on the FCC’s plan to repeal net neutrality rules found that 2 million of them were filed using stolen identities. That’s according to New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

“Millions of fake comments have corrupted the FCC public process—including two million that stole the identities of real people, a crime under New York law,” Schneiderman said in an announcement today. “Yet the FCC is moving full steam ahead with a vote based on this corrupted process, while refusing to cooperate with an investigation.”

Some comments were submitted under the names of dead people.

Read 14 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Biz & IT – Ars Technica

Tom Wheeler slams Ajit Pai’s plan to kill net neutrality rules

Enlarge / Then-FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler with current FCC Chairman Ajit Pai testify before the House Judiciary Committee about Internet regulation on March 25, 2015 in Washington, DC. (credit: Getty Images | Chip Somodevilla )

Former Federal Communications Commission Chairman Tom Wheeler took aim at his successor’s plan to eliminate net neutrality rules today, saying that FCC Chairman Ajit Pai is selling out consumers and entrepreneurs at the behest of major Internet service providers.

“ISP monopoly carriers have been trying for four years to get to this point,” Wheeler said, pointing to a 2013 story in The Washington Post about how telecoms were trying to “shift regulation of their broadband businesses to other agencies that don’t have nearly as much power as the FCC.”

Pai’s elimination of net neutrality rules, scheduled for a vote on December 14, will also shift consumer protection responsibility to the Federal Trade Commission and forbid state and local governments from writing their own net neutrality rules.

Read 18 remaining paragraphs | Comments

Biz & IT – Ars Technica