Net Neutrality - The New York Times

Net Neutrality, Back in Court

It was predictable that a telephone or cable company would challenge the rules proposed last December by the Federal Communications Commission to guarantee that the Internet remains an open network.

Still, the lawsuits filed by Verizon and MetroPCS earlier this year against the F.C.C.’s net neutrality rules are disappointing. The suits fall into a swirl of antiregulatory fervor among Republicans on Capitol Hill. The continuing resolution passed by the House last week forbids the F.C.C. from using any money to put the new rules into effect.

That bill, and the lawsuits, risk stripping away the F.C.C.’s light-touch attempt to ensure that the Internet remains open — an approach carefully crafted in months of negotiations with Verizon and other companies.

The suits could potentially free Internet service providers from regulation — allowing them to treat their own content better than that of rivals, and block content that they didn’t like or competed with. Verizon and AT&T have about 60 percent of wireless subscribers. And 80 percent of Americans live in areas with only two wireline broadband providers. In a market with such slender competition, consumers are likely to lose out.

Verizon’s argument is simple: it doesn’t want the F.C.C. to write rules for the Internet. This is especially true when it comes to wireless, which it views as virgin territory. The question is, should Verizon be allowed to, say, block Web sites that compete with its own services and discriminate at will to pursue its business interests? To us, that should be an area of federal intervention.

Both lawsuits take advantage of a weakness in the F.C.C.’s approach: in proposing new rules for the Internet, it decided to stick to the Bush administration’s definition of the Internet as an “information service” rather than reclassify it as a telecom service. The F.C.C. has limited regulatory power over information services, and much more over telecommunications.

In April 2010, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit ruled that the F.C.C.’s authority over information services was so limited that past efforts to ensure network neutrality exceeded its authority. While the commission believes its new rules will survive the court challenge, we fear that its strategy is legally vulnerable. Verizon and MetroPCS are bringing their cases in the D.C. Circuit.

The choice for American consumers is between the open broadband they have come to expect — in which they can view any content from sources big and small — and a walled garden somewhat like cable TV, where providers can decide what we can see, and at what price.

Net Neutrality - BBC News

Minister Ed Vaizey backs 'two-speed' internet

Culture minister Ed Vaizey has backed a “two-speed” internet, letting service providers charge content makers and customers for “fast lane” access.

It paves the way for an end to "net neutrality" - with heavy bandwidth users like Google and the BBC likely to face a bill for the pipes they use.

Mr Vaizey said ISPs must be free to experiment with new charges to help pay for the expansion in internet services.

But critics warn the move could harm free speech and stifle innovation.

'Fast lane'

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are supposed to treat all web traffic equally - serving only as a one-size-fits-all pipe for whatever data is passing from content providers to end users.

But a debate has been raging around the world over how much they should be allowed to control the size of their pipes, and thus the internet speed that users get from the site.

In the US, President Barack Obama has backed net neutrality - treating all traffic equally - and regulators have threatened possible legal action against ISPs that block or restrict access to sites.

But some traffic management, where traffic from one source is favoured over another, is likely to be allowed, with a ruling due next year, Mr Vaizey suggests.

The EU has also backed traffic management but with greater transparency to ensure the internet remains "open" - something that will soon be enshrined in UK law.

Mr Vaizey argues that most ISPs already carried out traffic management "to ensure the smooth running of their networks" without any impact on competition or consumer rights.

In his speech, he argues that the continued quality of internet services in the UK is under threat due to the rapid expansion of mobile and wireless networks and the "massive investment" it needed.

As a result, ISPs had to be free to experiment with new ways of raising revenue - provided customers were clear about what they were buying.

He says: "We have got to continue to encourage the market to innovate and experiment with different business models and ways of providing consumers with what they want.

"This could include the evolution of a two-sided market where consumers and content providers could choose to pay for differing levels of quality of service."

He also suggests that content makers could be charged for the first time for the use of the ISP's networks - provided they too were clear about what they were getting.

"Content and application providers should be able to know exactly what level of service they are getting especially if they are paying for it," he says.

'Appalling'

He added that the government did not want to introduce new laws on top of those already being adopted from the EU to guarantee an "open" internet, arguing that light touch regulation was better.

He also argued that, that unlike in the US where some areas only had the choice of one service provider, there was enough rivalry between providers to ensure consumers' rights were protected.

"The essential competition we enjoy in Europe and especially in the UK, will be an essential safeguard against unfair discrimination," he argues.

He said ISPs must also guarantee that net users can continue to access any legal website or content.

"In order for the internet to continue as the open, innovative force for good that it has been over the past 20 years it is essential that all elements continue to prosper.

"This means ensuring that content providers and applications have open access to consumers and vice versa.

"But it also means allowing ISPs and networks to innovate and experiment with new ways of delivering what consumers want so we can ensure continued investment in the infrastructure that delivers the content and applications we all use."

But Jim Killock, of net freedom campaigners the Open Rights Group, said the proposals could have "appalling" consequences for free speech and commercial innovation.

"Ed Vaizey is wrong to assume that there is no problem if BT or Virgin restrict people's internet access for their commercial advantage. Removing 'net neutrality' will reduce innovation and reduce people's ability to exercise their freedom of speech.

"This is why ORG will campaign against any market abuse, should Ed Vaizey allow it to happen."

'Peak times'

But the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) welcomed what it called Mr Vaizey's "lightly-regulated, market-based approach" towards traffic management, adding that ISPs should be "open and transparent" to boost confidence in the industry.

An ISPA spokesman said: "This approach will reassure those who are investing in networks and coming up with new, innovative online business models.

"A number of ISPA members already provide consumers with clear information on traffic management practices and we expect to see this extended.

"ISPs use traffic management techniques so that they are able to effectively and efficiently run and manage their networks for the benefits of all users.

"This enables ISPs to prioritise time-sensitive applications, such as VoIP and online gaming, at peak times."

Net Neutrality - The Guardian

Berners-Lee warns ISPs on net neutrality

Inventor of world wide web says plans for 'two-speed' internet go against its principles

The inventor of the world wide web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has warned internet service providers (ISPs) that plans for a "two-speed" internet go against the principles that have let the net grow so rapidly in the past two decades.

"Best practices should also include the neutrality of the net," Berners-Lee told a round table in Westminster on Wednesday morning, convened by the communications minister Ed Vaizey. Content companies, represented by Facebook, Skype, the BBC and Yahoo, squared up to ISPs, with input from consumer representatives including the Open Rights Group, the Consumers' Association and the communications regulator Ofcom.

Jim Killock of the Open Rights Group, who was representing consumer interests at the meeting, said afterwards that he was concerned about the direction the debate was going: "The potential for something going terribly wrong is absolutely there. The regulator and government do not wish to intervene, for good reason; but industry is not putting forward anything that looks like meaningful self-regulation."

ISPs have for years sought to charge the BBC or customers, or both, for the huge amounts of data transferred over their networks by applications such as the iPlayer, whose popularity has exploded in the past few years. ISPs have to pay for carriage of data from BT's core network to customers, but offer unmetered services on broadband – meaning that when people's demand for data grows, ISPs can be out of pocket.

But the BBC and other content providers such as YouTube have resisted calls that they should pay, on the basis that they are providing a service that allows the ISPs to find customers. In response, ISPs both in the US and Europe have mooted the idea of "two-tier" connections where some services are slower than others. Skype complained at the meeting that its service is effectively blocked on all of the mobile services in the UK except 3, meaning that carriers are violating the principle of net neutrality because they fear it will affect their call revenues.

Berners-Lee told the meeting that "every customer should be able to access every service, and every service should be able to access every customer ... The web has grown so fast precisely because we have had two independent markets, one for connectivity, and the other for content and applications."

Vaizey said the meeting had been "useful and productive" and that "it was important to discuss how to ensure the internet remains an open, innovative and competitive place."

"Net neutrality" – in which services are treated exactly equally as they pass over the net, no matter what their source or destination – has become an increasingly vexed topic as demands on ISPs and mobile carriers have begun to outstrip capacity.

ISPs have thus suggested that they should be allowed to manipulate the transfer of data, but that they would be transparent about how and what they were doing.

On Monday the Broadband Stakeholder Group launched a new traffic management transparency code, which has since been signed by the largest fixed-line and mobile carriers, including BSkyB, BT, Everything Everywhere (formerly Orange and T-Mobile), TalkTalk, 3, Virgin Media and Vodafone. Together they represent more than 90% of all fixed-line broadband and mobile customers in the UK.

It pledges that "information will be provided in a common format to explain what traffic management techniques are used, when and with what impact for each broadband service currently marketed by the code's signatories."

But Rob Reid, senior policy adviser at the Consumers' Association, who was among the attendees at the meeting, said that there was concern that transparency was only one half of the required commitment – because users might be tied into contracts lasting 18 months or more, meaning that if they disliked a change to the traffic management policy it would be expensive to switch to a different provider who offered one they preferred.

Antony Walker, the chief executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, told the Guardian: "The issue of [customer] switching is critical. It's the other side of the coin to transparency. Ofcom is working on guidance on this and it is an issue that was highlighted. Everybody agrees that it is important."

Adding faster systems would only work as a short-term measure to relieve congestion on networks, said Walker: "it's like adding more lanes to the M25 – it just attracts more cars. Having faster networks will mean that people will want more services using more data."

But Killock said that not enough was being done yet: "In contrast with the US, where rules are being put in place through the Federal Communications Commission, or Norway where ISPs have agreed a meaningful code, our ISPs are not offering us what we and the UK economy needs. If that continues to be the case, then Ed Vaizey will find himself with the task of breaking the log jam."

"Digital media have, in many ways, changed how we consume media products." Who do you think benefits most - audiences or producers?

Throughout the years, technology has expanded to the point where audiences no longer consume media texts in the same way. New and digital media have made it easier for audiences to consume certain products. Convergence and other technological advances have increased accessibility and made consuming the media more convenient for audiences. As well as audiences, producers have also been affected by new and digital media. Web 2.0 means that audiences can now be producers too, and ever changing media means that producers have to adapt to compete with other companies. The impact of new and digital media is evident in both the news and TV broadcasting as both are now consumed differently to before the rise of digital media.

New and digital media has considerably changed the way that we consume the news. Online news means that the news is more accessible as audiences can read about it whenever they want. Not only is this convenient for audiences as they can decide when and how to consume the news, but it is also free, so new and digital media benefits audiences as the news is more accessible. Rupert Murdoch has recently released a new newspaper that is only available on an iPad, called The Daily. Also, audiences are able to read the news on a smart phone, which adds to the convenience as they can carry the news around with them. Social networking has also changed the way that audiences consume the news as people now rely on finding out about the news through social networking websites such as Facebook. The impact of new and digital media on the news benefits audiences as it makes accessing the news more convenient for them. However, it can be seen as a moral panic that people rely on technology for anything, even receiving the news.

New and digital media has also had an impact of the producers of the news. Free online news, as well as the competition created by the plurality of more news sources, has led to a decline in newspapers, so producers have had to think of new ways to gain audiences. Newspapers such as The Times have tried to make newspapers more convenient for audience by publishing in tabloid format so they are easier to read. Some newspapers also have a lot of content, as The Sunday Times includes many newspapers and magazines in one. Some news websites have had to introduce paywalls as a way of charging for news now that less people are prepared to pay for newspapers. However, citizen journalists are competition for online news as the user-generated content is more reliable as they will publish news that big companies may not want to publish, such as controversial news stories. Therefore, new and digital media has had a mainly negative impact of the producers of the news. However, producers of other media, such as smart phones, have benefited as they now provide audiences with free news, making their services more sought after.

TV broadcasting has also been affected by new and digital media. New technology, such as 3D TV and HD TV, has made TV viewing a more cinematic experience for audiences as the content is now of a higher quality. TV broadcasting now also offers more plurality as audiences don't have to pay as much attention to scheduling. Catch-up services, such as BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 4oD and Demand 5 allow audiences to watch TV in their own time, as well as timeshifting, such as Channel 4+1. Also, with technology such as Sky +, audiences can record TV, so scheduling is no longer as important. The amount of channels that digital TV offers is also pluralistic as there are more channels to choose rather than just five terrestrial channels. Like the news, new and digital media has made TV broadcasting more convenient for audiences today.

Producers of TV broadcasting have to adapt to keep up with the changing media landscape. To compete with other companies, such as News Corp, most digital TV companies now offer audiences the opportunity to record TV. However, new and digital media has had a negative impact on producers as they can no longer target the right audiences through scheduling as less people watch TV at the scheduled time. Also, online TV cannot be regulated, so audiences may be watching content that is not suitable for them as there is no watershed and post-watershed.

Overall, new and digital media has had a large impact on the way that media products are consumed. Society has become more immediate, and this is reflected in both the news and TV broadcasting. Both are now more convenient for audiences as audiences can decide when, where and how to consume them. The plurality has given audiences more power, meaning that new and digital media has had a positive impact on audiences in relation to the news and TV broadcasting. However, producers of these products have been disadvantaged as they can no longer target the right audience. With TV broadcasting, scheduling is no longer important to audience as new technology allows them to choose their own viewing times, so producers cannot target the right audiences. Also, advertisers can no longer make sure that the right people are watching their adverts as audience watch at different times. Producers of the news are also at a disadvantage as free news means that audiences are less likely to pay as much for newspapers. Also, citizen journalists can be considered to be more reliable than big institutions, so journalists have less of a job.

Are We Obsessed with Facebook?

500 000 000 active Facebook users - 1/13 people on earth
84% of 18-34 year olds check Facebook when they wake up
35+ represents more that 30% of Facebook users
71.2% of USA web users are on Faebook
57% of people talk more online than in person
48% of young Americans find out about news through Facebook

The world is OBSESSED with Facebook!

The Mutualisation of News

"Gone are the days of 'us and them' journalism. The web has led to a news community where ideas and news are shared rather than delivered." The public are just as important as journalists in making the news.

"We controlled the delivery of news and comment to our readers and the only involvement they had was through the carefully controlled letters page." News was controlled before. The public weren't getting the full news story, but only what it was decided that we should be told.

"The development of the internet, and with it the creation of 'citizen journalists', has revolutionised the delivery of information." Citizen journalists, members of the public who create their own news, have changed the way in which we now receive our news.

"We can use the community of our readers in ways we would not have been able to in the past." Readers are more important now than they have ever been before.

"It cannot be true that there are only a handful of people worth listening to in the world. Comment is Free is infinitely richer and more diverse and more plural." Everyone is given a voice, rather than just journalists, as everyone's news is just as important.

"Where members feel involved and where there is a shared interest." Involving readers more. Rather than just reading the news, we are active participants in making it.

"New applications such as Twitter make it increasingly possible for individual journalists to publish outside the constraints of our newspaper and website and develop direct relationships with communities of readers." No restrictions with citizen journalism. Citizen journalists can publish anything they want.

"A blurring of the line between journalism and readers." Readers can now be journalists too.

"Our newspapers have a tight control on information as no story is published until it has gone through several quality checks. But in the world of Twitter, for example, journalists are now publishing information without any monitoring." News is not controlled like it used to be.

"If at some point the technology becomes too large in scale, that is the time to build guidelines. For example, we now have guidelines for Twitter." Danger of new and digital media giving people too much power.

The Impact of New and Digital Media on TV Broadcasting

Has new and digital media had an impact upon ownership and control of the media institutions owned in your case study area? Explain in detail any impact and what exactly has changed.
The BBC is a public service broadcaster that is paid for through licence fees. Because of the plurality that new and digital media offers through a wider range of channels to watch, less people are watching the BBC, which has raised debates about the licence fee as people are paying both the licence fee and their digital TV fee. The BBC now has to compete with digital TV so that viewers feel like they are getting what they paid for. The BBC has done this by releasing its own digital channels, such as BBC 3. This has changed the ownership of media institutions as the BBC has had to branch into digital TV in order to compete with other institutions.
Sky is a part of News Corp, which is one of the biggest media conglomerates. Recently, Sky has released Sky HD and Sky 3D, showing that Sky is developing faster than other TV broadcasting institutions. Digital TV should offer plurality because of the wide choice of channels available. As most people who own digital TV own Sky, a marxist view would be that digital TV is not as pluralistic as it would seem because the channels that are broadcasted are chosen by the institutions.

What impact has there been on the way in which the audience now consume the media products involved in your case study? How does it differ from what went before?
Audiences have a greater choice of what to watch because there are so many more channels available. After the digital switchover, all audiences will have many channels rather than just five.
Online viewing makes watching TV more convenient for audiences as they can watch things in their own time. Also, institutions such as Sky allow viewers to record TV, meaning that audiences have time for other things. Online viewing and recorded TV has led to TV scheduling becoming less important. Also, 3D TV and HD TV make watching TV more of a cinematic experience, so it is more enjoyable.

What impact has there been on how the media institution now has to produce the texts and the way in which the texts are distributed and exhibited?
Online viewing, catch-up services (such as +1) and recorded TV means that less people watch TV at the scheduled time. Because audiences now choose their own scheduled time, TV ratings could decrease. Do the institutions count viewers who do not watch at the scheduled time?
The internet cannot be censored and regulated. Post-watershed shows are not restricted online so new and digital media has meant that texts can now be viewed by anyone.

Is the size of the audience any different now than before the impact of new and digital media (or has the pattern of usage changed)?
Less audiences watch terrestrial TV because of the range of available channels.
People do not watch TV at the scheduled time as they can either record or watch online.
Less audiences watch terrestrial TV because the range of available channels offers plurality.

Who are the primary target audience now and how has this changed?
?

How have the audience responded to the changes? Is there more consumer choice? Is there evidence of a more pluralistic model? What evidence do you have to support this?
Digital TV offers pluralism as there are so many more channels to choose from and audience can pause, rewind and record TV, leaving scheduling up to them. Online viewing is also pluralistic as audiences decide when and how to watch TV.
However, the digital switchover is forcing audiences to buy digital TV. This could affect society as more channels means more time is spent on TV, so people have less time for other things.

What concerns/considerations are there for the media institutions involved in your case study as a result of the impact of new and digital media?
Is there any need for people to do scheduling?
BBC has to compete with digital channels to keep viewers as the pluralism of digital TV means the BBC have less audiences.

What are the political and social implications of the new technologies and the methods of their consumption?
Pluralism is being compromised by the amount of control that certain institutions have over us. News Corp already have a large amount of power, and the increasing amount of people with Sky is giving them even more power and control. The BBC has decreasing power as more and more channels means less people watch the BBC.
With the large amount of time spent watching TV, less people do other things. Is TV breaking down communication in society, and dumbing us down?

Consider the effects so far, and possible effects in the future, on media institutions involved in TV broadcasting.
News Corp will rule us all.
The TV licence may disappear as the BBC can't compete with the amount of other channels available.
Most of our TV viewing will be done through eMedia.

What issues may there be regarding media effects and/or regulation and censorship as a result of changes due to new and digital media?
eMedia can't be regulated. A lot of TV viewing is now done on the eMedia platform, but as this can't be regulated, there are issues about the content that we are being exposed to. There is no watershed, meaning that anyone can watch content that is not suitable for younger audiences. All we have to do is press a button that says that we are old enough.

Are there any cross-cultural factors and/or effects of globalisation involved in the impact of new technology on your case study?
The internet has made the TV of one country available around the world. Any audiences may now be able to watch our TV, however, some texts, such as BBC iPlayer, only allow viewing in certain countries. Content from BBC iPlayer can't be watched in Egypt.