Mobile Internet: network neutrality threatened
Yes to network neutrality, but some networks may be more neutral than others: it is essentially the contents of the "legislative proposal" made by Google and the U.S. operator Verizon on Net Neutrality. This principle requires that the network, the content flow as equals, without discrimination based on their destination or their nature.
The document reflects some of the positions of the Open Internet Coalition, which includes Google, eBay or Amazon, but not Verizon. It includes three main points. He argues that network neutrality is extremely important for consumers as the free competition as regards access to broadband Internet. However, it provides that service providers and content can provide "differentiated services", such as a television service broadcast in parallel to the 3D Web, where a priority entrance fee should be possible. Finally, the paper finds that, given its specific technology and investment required, it is not desirable to apply the principle of network neutrality to the mobile Internet, where a "duty of transparency" on services Blocked suffice.
In fact, today the principle of Net neutrality is not applied by mobile operators: some features may be blocked (VoIP, P2P peer-to-peer) and access can be very limited with a maximum data. A controversial practice by both advocates of network neutrality, such as Quadrature du Net (PDF), and consumer groups. The UFC-Que Choisir and denounced the bids in June called "unlimited internet" to mobile, which does not provide genuine access to the Internet, since some features are blocked, or unlimited access, since the packages are limited in volume.
GOOGLE VERIZON DONE FOLDING
Last week, the New York Times said that Google and Verizon have begun negotiations to provide priority access to Google - against payment - the network operator. Information contradicted by Google, which does not, however, denied having engaged in bilateral discussions with Verizon, and affirmed its commitment to maintain the neutrality of the Net.
However, Google has actually backtracked on a specific point. Invited by the Federal Communications Commission, Constable - denied - access to the Internet in the United States as part of the Comcast case, Google was issued in April a series of remarks on Net Neutrality. In this document, the company felt that "no valid reason why the same rules of transparency and non discrimination apply to all networks, including wireless networks. The mobile operators' refuse to acknowledge they use questionable practices, such as content monitoring and blocking services, and invoke the need to invest in 3G networks but neglect to mention that the sector has experienced unprecedented concentration United States, Google also noted. In late 2009, in a joint statement, Google and Verizon acknowledged that the two companies had a disagreement on how the mobile networks should be regulated.
SIMILAR APPROACH IN FRANCE
In France, where a bill on net neutrality must be developed in September, the State Secretariat in the digital economy has produced a report on the subject, Libération revealed several passages. Like Google and Verizon, the Secretary of State considers that if Net neutrality is desirable, it does not prohibit certain exceptions, like the consumer to pay in exchange for a "guaranteed quality of service", like a registered post. Similarly, the report noted that technical limitations can justify the prohibition of certain services on the mobile Internet.
But the main point in common between Google and Verizon proposal and the report of the Secretary of State remains the distinction between legal and illegal content. The two companies plan and that consumers should be free "to send and receive lawful content of their choice" and "use the legal applications and the legal services of their choice." Similarly, the French report states that "on the Internet, as elsewhere, the illegal conduct (fraud and scams, press offenses, violations of privacy, counterfeiting, piracy of works protected by copyright, broadcasting child pornography, etc..) should be prosecuted and punished, which may involve the introduction of filtering or blocking certain content. " Both texts thus sparing space filtering content on the Web, already available in France by Bill Loppsi (for child porn websites), or the law on online games (for sites not approved).
A major difference, however, separates the two approaches. The French report also mentions the prohibition of content by Apple on its iPhone Flash and, especially, the "neutrality of referrals. Believing that the rankings of search engines should also sacrifice the principle of "neutrality" - even though by nature a ranking algorithm can not be neutral in the conventional sense - the report of the Secretary of State seize the Commission recommends EU on this issue. Unsurprisingly, the "neutrality of referrals" does not appear in the proposal made by Verizon and Google.
The document reflects some of the positions of the Open Internet Coalition, which includes Google, eBay or Amazon, but not Verizon. It includes three main points. He argues that network neutrality is extremely important for consumers as the free competition as regards access to broadband Internet. However, it provides that service providers and content can provide "differentiated services", such as a television service broadcast in parallel to the 3D Web, where a priority entrance fee should be possible. Finally, the paper finds that, given its specific technology and investment required, it is not desirable to apply the principle of network neutrality to the mobile Internet, where a "duty of transparency" on services Blocked suffice.
In fact, today the principle of Net neutrality is not applied by mobile operators: some features may be blocked (VoIP, P2P peer-to-peer) and access can be very limited with a maximum data. A controversial practice by both advocates of network neutrality, such as Quadrature du Net (PDF), and consumer groups. The UFC-Que Choisir and denounced the bids in June called "unlimited internet" to mobile, which does not provide genuine access to the Internet, since some features are blocked, or unlimited access, since the packages are limited in volume.
GOOGLE VERIZON DONE FOLDING
Last week, the New York Times said that Google and Verizon have begun negotiations to provide priority access to Google - against payment - the network operator. Information contradicted by Google, which does not, however, denied having engaged in bilateral discussions with Verizon, and affirmed its commitment to maintain the neutrality of the Net.
However, Google has actually backtracked on a specific point. Invited by the Federal Communications Commission, Constable - denied - access to the Internet in the United States as part of the Comcast case, Google was issued in April a series of remarks on Net Neutrality. In this document, the company felt that "no valid reason why the same rules of transparency and non discrimination apply to all networks, including wireless networks. The mobile operators' refuse to acknowledge they use questionable practices, such as content monitoring and blocking services, and invoke the need to invest in 3G networks but neglect to mention that the sector has experienced unprecedented concentration United States, Google also noted. In late 2009, in a joint statement, Google and Verizon acknowledged that the two companies had a disagreement on how the mobile networks should be regulated.
SIMILAR APPROACH IN FRANCE
In France, where a bill on net neutrality must be developed in September, the State Secretariat in the digital economy has produced a report on the subject, Libération revealed several passages. Like Google and Verizon, the Secretary of State considers that if Net neutrality is desirable, it does not prohibit certain exceptions, like the consumer to pay in exchange for a "guaranteed quality of service", like a registered post. Similarly, the report noted that technical limitations can justify the prohibition of certain services on the mobile Internet.
But the main point in common between Google and Verizon proposal and the report of the Secretary of State remains the distinction between legal and illegal content. The two companies plan and that consumers should be free "to send and receive lawful content of their choice" and "use the legal applications and the legal services of their choice." Similarly, the French report states that "on the Internet, as elsewhere, the illegal conduct (fraud and scams, press offenses, violations of privacy, counterfeiting, piracy of works protected by copyright, broadcasting child pornography, etc..) should be prosecuted and punished, which may involve the introduction of filtering or blocking certain content. " Both texts thus sparing space filtering content on the Web, already available in France by Bill Loppsi (for child porn websites), or the law on online games (for sites not approved).
A major difference, however, separates the two approaches. The French report also mentions the prohibition of content by Apple on its iPhone Flash and, especially, the "neutrality of referrals. Believing that the rankings of search engines should also sacrifice the principle of "neutrality" - even though by nature a ranking algorithm can not be neutral in the conventional sense - the report of the Secretary of State seize the Commission recommends EU on this issue. Unsurprisingly, the "neutrality of referrals" does not appear in the proposal made by Verizon and Google.
Posted by Learning Foreign Exchange
on 10:22 AM.
Filed under
feature,
technology
.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0