Millions of anti-net neutrality comments submitted to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) were fake, according to yesterday's report from the State of New York.

The report, commissioned by New York Attorney General Letitia James, investigated a public consultation held by the FCC over its plans to repeal net neutrality rules in 2018. That consultation, which ultimately resulted in the FCC repealing the rules and eliminating net neutrality, was corrupted by a massive ISP-backed campaign to generate anti-net neutrality comments. The subcontractors who generated the comments did so fraudulently while broadband industry backers turned a blind eye, the report says.

The campaign used a technique known as astroturfing, in which lobbyists control supposed public interest groups to steer public opinion.

It began with a document circulated among senior broadband industry executives several days before Donald Trump’s inauguration in January 2017. The document suggested funding a campaign to collect comments for the FCC to provide then-chairman Ajit Pai with what executives called "intellectual cover" to repeal the net neutrality rules.

This campaign operated through a nonprofit called Broadband for America (BFA), with an executive committee comprising broadband executives.

This nonprofit spent $8.5 million on anti-net neutrality lobbying, most of which came from three of America's largest broadband companies. However, the campaign was operated through several non-profit entities, including American Commitment, the Center for Individual Freedoms, and the Taxpayers Protection Alliance. The BFA controlled everything, the report said.

These astroturfing groups operated their own comment collection pages, although they collected few comments. In reality, the BFA's lobbying firm enlisted co-registration lead generation companies to generate and submit comments, all of which used fraudulent tactics, the report said.

Co-registration companies promise free prizes and coupons to consumers in return for registering their names and contact details online, and, in some cases, responding to survey questions. The companies allegedly promised to solicit comment on the net neutrality rules via these sites, but it instead merely copied information from past registrants, whose names were submitted to the FCC as opposing net neutrality without their consent.

When consumers complained about these acts,, New York-based co-registration company Fluent allegedly lied to the BFA and fabricated landing pages with the solicitations.

Other co-registration companies commissioned by the lobbying firm subcontracted the work to a network of others, creating what the report called "an environment ripe for fraud." One of the subcontractors didn't even operate co-registration sites.

Another contractor, which promised to run online advertisements soliciting comment, instead used names and addresses stolen during a data breach and dumped online in 2016.

One company used a text generation program to generate over a million fake comments for submission to the FCC, attaching them to fraudulently gathered names and email addresses.

The BFA acknowledged, discussed, and ultimately ignored red flags that pointed to fraudulent activities, the report added.

Not all fraud supported repealing the net neutrality rules, though. In another incident, a college student used automated software to submit 9.3 million comments to the FCC supporting net neutrality using easily fabricated names and email addresses.

Overall, nearly 18 million of the more than 22 million comments the FCC received in its public consultation were fake, James said.

The State of New York has imposed penalties on participants who collected the fraudulent comments: Fluent, Opt-Intelligence, and React2Media. Between them, they must pay $4.4 million in penalties and instigate reforms.

Ofcom is planning to review the UK’s net neutrality laws following a complaint made by EE CEO Marc Allera on the negative impact of the current regulations.

Last week, the executive released a statement calling for changes to the existing net neutrality framework, saying that it “puts pressure on networks to sustain the rise and rise of the most popular content and gaming platforms”.

One such platform is Netflix, which Allera said is “consistently among the top services driving 60/70 per cent of traffic across [BT/EE’s] fixed and mobile networks”.

“The problem we face is, allowing access for free to certain websites is incompatible with current net neutrality arrangements. Zero-rating large sites – for us and any other network operator – drives huge data traffic and costs onto networks,” he said.

Following Allera's remarks, Ofcom has confirmed that it will launch a review into the UK’s net neutrality laws, which had fallen under EU legislation prior to Brexit.

An Ofcom spokesperson told the Telegraph: “Over the course of the next year we are planning to look at the existing framework for net neutrality to ensure we can continue to support innovation, while protecting consumers.

BT is expected to provide its insights as part of the review, with a company spokesperson telling IT Pro that “conversations around this are in early stages”.

“What the pandemic has shown is that if there’s ambition to drive uptake of broadband ever higher, at affordable prices for UK households, then we have to consider how we ensure content distribution from some of the world’s largest companies can become more efficient and equitable, while also ensuring good quality of service for content providers,” they added.

“What we are proposing, is that policy requirements evolve to allow us to better distinguish and manage traffic for those largest content providers who generate the highest traffic peaks, allowing for a host of new services that we can offer them, and ultimately their audiences.”

Net neutrality has been met with heated debate over the last few years, particularly in the US. In 2015, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in favour of net neutrality and this decision was upheld by the Court of Appeals a year later. However, the law was overturned just two years later, under net neutrality opponent Donald Trump.

In response, the state of California adopted their own law requiring net neutrality and the decision was opposed by the US Justice Department, which only withdrew its legal challenge to the California law last month, after president Joe Biden, a Democrat and proponent of the law, took office.

The US government signalled a significant U-turn in its net neutrality approach after dropping a legal case against California.

In Eastern California District Court, the Biden administration retracted the Trump-era legal action that challenged the state’s pro-net neutrality legislation.

Net neutrality forbids telecommunications companies from treating network traffic differently based on its type or its origin. It was a longstanding principle underpinning the internet, which the Obama administration officially regulated in 2015.

In 2017, under the Trump administration, former FCC chairman Ajit Pai overturned that regulation, striking down the net neutrality rules and enabling telcos to discern between different types of internet traffic.

California passed its own legislation, SB 822, in 2018 aimed at reintroducing net neutrality laws in the state. The Department of Justice (DoJ) then launched a lawsuit against the state, claiming its legislation contradicted the FCC's ruling and the state didn't have the right to decide telecommunications policy.

SB 822 was supposed to come into effect on January 1, 2019, but Attorney General Xavier Becerra agreed to stay the legislation while a Washington, DC court decided on a case brought against the FCC by Mozilla, Vimeo, and 22 states objecting to the Commission's net neutrality rollback. The court ruled in the FCC's favor in October 2019.

The DoJ responded to a judicial query, officially dropping its case against California on Monday, prompting new FCC chairwoman, Jessica Rosenworcel, to issue a formal statement.

"I am pleased that the Department of Justice has withdrawn this lawsuit. When the FCC, over my objection, rolled back its net neutrality policies, states like California sought to fill the void with their own laws," she said. "By taking this step, Washington is listening to the American people, who overwhelmingly support an open internet, and is charting a course to once again make net neutrality the law of the land."

California still has some work ahead of it before it can enforce its proposed legislation, though. It faces litigation from other parties: the American Cable Association, the CTIA wireless trade association, the Internet & Television Association, and the United States Telecom Association (USTelecom).

A US appeals court has refused to rehear the net neutrality repeal ruling, declining the request filed by 15 US states, as well as multiple trade and advocacy groups.

One of the notable groups that sought the rehearing was INCOMPAS, whose significant members include BT, Microsoft, Amazon.com, Facebook, and Google.

The appeal was filed in December of last year, in response to the October 2019 ruling that largely upheld the repeal of net neutrality, and two years after the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted to reverse the landmark principle.

In June 2018, the US officially scrapped regulations that forced internet service providers to treat all data that travelles over their networks equally.

Critics of net neutrality justified the decision by arguing that the principle, which was introduced in 2015 by the Obama administration, stifled innovation and hampered internet providers.

Net neutrality rules have remained active in UK law through the EU’s Regulation 2015/2120, which “aims to establish common rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of internet access services”.

Following the UK’s recent departure from the EU, the status of net neutrality might potentially be threatened.

The Chairman of FCC, Ajit Pai, a significant proponent for repealing net neutrality, welcomed the appeal court’s decision.

“The internet has remained free and open, consumers have been protected, speeds have increased, and more and more Americans have gotten access to broadband,” said a spokeswoman for Pai.

In the past, Pai had experienced backlash for opposing net neutrality. In early 2018, he was forced to cancel his appearance at CES after receiving death threats.

The headlines of recent years have been dominated by the term ‘net neutrality’, and so understanding the pros and cons of net neutrality will be useful moving forward.

What is net neutrality?

Net neutrality’s core principle is that all internet traffic should be treated fairly, proscribing penalising or prioritising traffic from a particular domain, services provider, or publisher.

European law includes protections to maintain net neutrality, the directive rules that “providers of [internet] services should treat all traffic equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference".

In the US, the situation is a little more complex. Having been established as a term in Tim Wu's 2003 paper 'Network Neutrality, Broadband Discrimination', it became a topic of hot debate throughout the early 2000s. On 26 February 2015, the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted in favour of net neutrality, and this was upheld by the District of Columbia's Court of Appeals in June 2016. Despite this, support for the vote was far from cross-party, and Republicans identified net neutrality as a contentious law they would repeal once in power. Under the leadership of president Donald Trump, the Republicans were in 2017 able to overturn the ruling in a 3-2 vote.

California settled on its own legislation requiring net neutrality in order to combat this, and signed it into law in September 2018. As a result, the state was sued by the Department of Justice, and the lawsuit was only dropped after the inauguration of President Joe Biden.

A state-by-state approach was described by internet service providers (ISPs) and telecom groups as confusing for customers. The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the law, however, in January 2022, and ruled the FCC is not able to override this. 

In a new development in July 2022, Massachusetts senator Ed Markey introduced a new Net Neutrality and Broadband Justice Act, which seeks to classify broadband internet access as a telecommunications service. If passed, this would bring net neutrality back into law.

In the UK, net neutrality is law as a result of the EU having adopted it as such in 2015-16. However, with the passage of the Retained EU Law Bill, the government is seeking to repeal almost 4,000 EU laws that were retained following Brexit, which would include the Open Internet Access Regulations 2016.

Amidst the legislative back-and-forth, public opinion has been divided on the topic of net neutrality, and there's obviously a range of pros and cons when it comes to this matter.

The argument for its removal was that it had been a burden on internet providers and stifled innovation. On the other hand, its proponents say that in the absence of net neutrality there is nothing preventing an ISP from hiding content behind paywalls or offering improved bandwidths to websites that can afford to pay more.

Pros of net neutrality

1. Freedom of expression

Net neutrality prevents ISPs from controlling the content their users can and cannot view on the web. This is crucial for journalism, and gives users more choice over where they get their news and entertainment from.

Net neutrality protects a diversity of voices online, enforcing rights to freedom of speech and ensuring that ISPs do not interfere with users’ ability to access a wide range of views. Of course, this is for better and for worse, but proponents argue that the alternative is an unacceptable overreach of free speech by broadband providers, who may have vested interests to bar certain views from their platform.

2. Stimulated innovation and competition

An open internet ensures that larger companies don't have yet another advantage over a tiny startup. It's a level playing field on the internet, where everything is delivered as fast as possible to the end user.

3. Unfettered access

It is likely that the wealthiest online companies, if pressed, would pay to have their websites available on so-called internet fast lanes.

Net neutrality laws protect against ISPs trying to charge companies to allow their users to connect to their services quicker than others, including industry competitors. Without these protections, companies like Netflix and Amazon Prime Video could engage in bidding wars to buy the right to have their content delivered to users at higher speeds.

End users also currently enjoy access to vital services such as online banking and email all for free. Net neutrality would protect this as a right, preventing the possibility of ISPs tacking on an additional fee for users wishing to access such services over their network.

Cons of net neutrality

1. Less network innovation

The rise of more sophisticated internet services, particularly video content, has created greater demand on bandwidth. This, according to many providers, has forced the need for greater spending on capacity, diverting funds away from service innovation.

Service providers maintain that while they’re able to put extra charges on the likes of Google and other major developers of resource-intensive internet platforms, they can divert these funds into upgrading networks and extending service availability.

However, the FCC’s own industry-funded research has shown that although investment fell by 2% in 2015 and 3% in 2016 while under net neutrality rules, many of the largest ISPs increased innovation spending.

2. Porn and objectionable content thrives

Opponents of net neutrality have also argued that the rules make it easier for underage users to access legal, but age-sensitive pornography. A wide range of commercial and business web filters to let users restrict access to certain services or websites on their devices. However, net neutrality opponents argue that younger users will merely use their mobile phones, through which they can access illicit websites without adult supervision.

Providers often argue that they could block these sites at a network-wide level, removing the problem at its source. This is something that exists under the UK’s Digital Economy Act, which demands that websites host identity verifications when users access their content, and compels ISPs to block sites that do not comply.

The UK government's Online Safety Bill, also sets out plans to require age verification on websites deemed inappropriate for underage users such as porn streaming sites. However, this bill is currently on ice as the government undergoes internal transformation.

Some also argue removing net neutrality laws would enable ISPs to crack down on peer-to-peer file-sharing websites, which represent a major source of online piracy activities.

3. No free Internet access

Those who oppose net neutrality contend there are more vital services that could be made freely accessible if companies drawing excess bandwidth are charged extra for their increased usage.

For example, video streaming websites are among a new generation of internet services with high bandwidth requirements in order to meet the content delivery demands. The argument posits if there was an access fee for websites such as Netflix and Youtube, services such as Wikipedia could be subsidized and made free for all with the ensuing funds. 

Net-neutrality campaigners have been given fresh hope by a new bill that seeks to restore the regulatory protections stripped back by the FCC earlier this year.

Campaigners have called it "a gold standard net neutrality bill" which would represent the most robust set of consumer internet protections the US has ever had. The bill would not only reinstate all of the net neutrality rules previously enacted by Tom Wheeler's Federal Communications Commission in 2015, it would also ban 'zero-rating' - the practise of network operators counting use of some services towards customers' data caps, but not others.

The bill, which was drafted by Democratic Senator Scott Wiener, is currently waiting to be approved by the Senate, after California's state Assembly voted to pass it 61-18. It is widely expected to pass through the Senate approvals process without difficulty; Senators previously passed an earlier version of the bill back in May, but substantive subsequent changes have meant that it will need to be re-approved.

"ISPs have tried hard to gut and kill this bill," wrote Electronic Frontier Foundation policy analyst Katharine Trendacosta, "pouring money and robocalls into California. There was a moment where that campaign looked like it might have been successful, but you spoke out and got strong net neutrality protections restored."

If approved, the bill will become a California state law, as opposed to a federal law. In short, this means that the new protections would only apply within the state of California, but campaigners are hopeful that the bill will act as a template for other states to follow when enacting their own net neutrality rules.

"We're in the home stretch here," Trendcosta added. "California could pass a gold standard net neutrality bill, providing a template for states going forward. California can prove that ISP money can't defeat real people's voices. So, one more time, contact your California state senator and tell them to vote yes on S.B. 822."

While net neutrality has broad, bipartisan public support across America, California is particulary keen on it. Not only is it the center of tech development in the US, but the state is still smarting from its first experience at the sharp end of life without net neutrality.

Santa Clara County's fire department found its supposedly 'unlimited' data tariff throttled by its ISP Verizon while it was in the middle of tackling a devastating wildfire. The fire department's mobile command centre uses a Verizon mobile connection to maintain remote internet access, but the country says Verizon forced the fire department to move to a new data plan which was more than twice as expensive before it would restore its speeds. Verizon has claimed this was due to a customer service error.

California lawmakers hope to prevent situations like this with the new bill, but they may be in for a wait; if the bill is not passed by the end of Friday, it will miss the final deadline for submitting legislation this year, and will need to be pushed back until 2019.

The US Federal Communications Commission has admitted that the alleged hack which blocked pro-net neutrality comments never happened, sparking outrage amongst activists.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai released a statement yesterday confirming that the outage that prevented many people from leaving comments on the FCC's net neutrality proposal last May was not caused by "external" actors as previously suggested, but instead by inadequate IT systems, implying that it was overwhelmed by the sheer volume of commenters.

The statement follows the conclusion of an investigation by the FCC's Inspector General into the agency's claims that it fell victim to a DDoS attack. Pai has primarily blamed ex-CIO David Bray for spreading the DDoS story, as well as implying that the technical failings were the result of mismanagement by the Obama-era FCC leadership.

"I am deeply disappointed that the FCC's former Chief Information Officer (CIO), who was hired by the prior Administration and is no longer with the Commission, provided inaccurate information about this incident to me, my office, Congress, and the American people," Pai said in a statement.

"It has become clear that in addition to a flawed comment system, we inherited from the prior Administration a culture in which many members of the Commission's career IT staff were hesitant to express disagreement with the Commission's former CIO in front of FCC management."

He also stated that the organisation's Electronic Comment Filing System (ECFS) was deeply in need of updating, and the FCC has pledged to improve it with the help of a congressional grant.

Many campaigners, however, are now calling for Congress to reinstate the net neutrality rules rolled back by the FCC, with Fight for the Future's deputy director Evan Greer arguing that the FCC's actions have rendered the pretext for the repeal "illegitimate".

"Under Ajit Pai's leadership, the FCC sabotaged its own public comment process," she said in a statement. "From ignoring millions of fraudulent comments using stolen names and addresses to outright lies about DDoS attacks that never happened, the agency recklessly abdicated its responsibility to maintain a functional way for the public to be heard."

"Pai attempts to blame his staff, but this happened on his watch, and he repeatedly obstructed attempts by lawmakers and the press to get answers. The repeal of net neutrality was not only unpopular, it was illegitimate. Congress must act now to pass the CRA resolution to reverse this decision and restore basic protections for Internet freedom."

The outage that the FCC initially blamed on a DDoS attack occurred last year, while the regulator was still in the process of gathering feedback and comments on whether or not to keep net neutrality rules in place. Powerful telco lobbies were in favour of repealing the rules, but polls showed that most ordinary people supported them, and the FCC's request for comment represented one of the only opportunities for them to make their opinions heard.

This was fuelled particularly by comedian John Oliver, after a segment on net neutrality from his HBO show Last Week Tonight went viral. The segment included simple instructions on how to leave a comment in support of net neutrality, and the FCC was promptly flooded with over 1.6 million responses. Shortly afterwards, the ECFS experienced a major outage, leaving people unable to post any further comments.

Although it's impossible to say for certain that the influx of feedback was a direct result of Oliver's segment, it's highly likely - particularly as the same thing happened in 2014. In a separate episode three years earlier, Oliver also issued a similar plea to users asking them to get in touch with the FCC to support net neutrality rules, after which the regulator received another deluge of comments.

The FCC's comments system went down in this instance too but, at the time, the watchdog (then led by Democrat Tom Wheeler) blamed the outage on the unexpected spike in traffic, coupled with old and ailing software.

While logic (and Pai's statement) would suggest that the same thing happened last year, the FCC instead insisted that the recent outage was the result of a DDoS attack. FCC officials also told reporters that the 2014 outage was also caused by a DDoS and that Wheeler was covering it up, according to a Gizmodo report.

Multiple sources have disputed these accounts, citing the FCC's refusal to produce any evidence in support of its claims. In fact, the Government Accountability Office is still in the midst of an independent investigation into the FCC's claims. This investigation is separate from the Inspector General's report, which has not yet been made public.

"The Inspector General Report tells us what we knew all along," said Jessica Rosenworcel, a Democrat member of the FCC and staunch defender of net neutrality; "The FCC's claim that it was the victim of a DDoS attack during the net neutrality proceeding is bogus."

Image: Shutterstock

You've probably heard a lot about net neutrality; one of the most contentious issues affecting the tech sector, it has been the subject of much debate, especially in the last few years. But what exactly is net neutrality, and why is everyone making such a big deal out of it?

In short, net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all internet traffic fairly, rather than artificially slowing down or speeding up the delivery of certain websites and services over others. This is so that large ISPs don't use their market dominance to boost the speeds of services that they own or profit from (or charging users for fast delivery of their favourite websites) whilst slowing services of rivals.

In Europe, net neutrality protections are already enshrined in law, with EU directives ruling that "providers of [internet] services should treat all traffic equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference". It's also widely expected that Britain will conform to those standards post-Brexit.

In the US, however, net neutrality is a hot-button issue. Internet access is controlled by large corporations such as AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, and in many cases these huge companies also provide cable TV, mobile coverage and other telecommunications services. Many parts of America are served by only one provider, meaning that consumers often have little to no choice about who provides their internet access.

The fear of net neutrality campaigners is that without legislation to keep them in check, these companies will use their stranglehold on the provision of broadband to boost the popularity and availability of the other services they own - such as video streaming platforms - at the expense of challenger companies that they hold no stake in.

In 2015, the Federal Communications Commission - led by Obama-era chairman Tom Wheeler - enacted regulation to enforce net neutrality, by reclassifying broadband from a Title I service to a Title II service. This meant that it was considered a telecommunications service, and therefore subject to the same 'common carrier' protections as utilities like water or power, meaning providers were barred from tampering with delivery of the service.

These protections have now been removed. The FCC voted 3-2 to repeal them in December 2017, and broadband officially returned to its original Title I designation as of 11 June 2018. While pro-net neutrality campaigners continue to fight for the reinstatement of the regulations on multiple fronts, the previous protections are gone as far as legislators are concerned.

Why did Trump dismantle US net neutrality?

Trump has always made his dim view of net neutrality widely known, and abolishing the regulations was an early commitment of his presidency. He appointed Ajit Pai, a member of the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), to the position of FCC chairman almost immediately after taking office, a figure who would be instrumental to the repeal of net neutrality.

The FCC has always maintained that net neutrality laws enacted under President Obama in 2015 had stifled innovation and restricted ISPs from investing in infrastructure. With the laws now repealed, the FCC claims companies will now have the flexibility to invest in new services and further help the economy.

However, critics claim that the FCC's argument was flawed, particularly as ISPs have stated that net neutrality laws have not impeded investment. Concerns remain that without the guarantee of equal rights for websites and their traffic, ISPs could favour certain websites over others. There's also the fear that providers such as Comcast and Verizon will now be able to create tiered speed options for online companies, essentially squeezing those who can't afford fast speeds out of the market.

Millions of comments during the regulator's public consultation argued against the proposals, there have been hundreds of protests by internet rights activists across the US over the past year, and many prominent websites, such as Reddit and GitHub, have voiced their opposition.

How US net neutrality was dismantled

Following a consultation in November 2017, Pai announced plans to scale back net neutrality laws, and hand over regulation of ISPs back to the Federal Trade Commission. The two organisations signed a 'Memorandum of Understanding' to enforce regulations on ISPs.

However, not everyone at the FCC was happy with these changes. Fellow FCC commissioner Mignon Clyburn and Jessica Rosenworcel opposed the plans to backtrack on President Obama's reforms, and would ultimately side against the proposals in the final vote.

A host of technology companies, including a consortium of 200 internet firms, and an early internet pioneer group championed by the likes of Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and world wide web inventor Tim Berners-Lee, adamantly opposed the repeal of net neutrality.

"We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood," read a letter from the pioneers, sent days before the net neutrality vote. "The FCC's rushed and technically incorrect proposed order to repeal net neutrality protections without any replacement is an imminent threat to the internet we worked so hard to create. It should be stopped."

The laws that replace net neutrality, dubbed 'Restoring Internet Freedoms Act', took effect on 11 June, but now groups opposed to the removal are set to challenge it in court, which could impede proceedings.

What is throttling?

Throttling can be defined as when a network provider deliberately slows the delivery of an internet service. This may be for a number of reasons - it could be where one user pays to access more bandwidth which means other users' access is impaired to boost the user paying more, or it may be done to prevent user congestion.

Net neutrality rules underline people's right to access any content or data they choose, or to use any service or run any application they desire, as long as the law isn't broken when doing so. Network providers cannot throttle access to internet services either.

The concept is based on the idea of all data being equally available to all users, rather than some data prioritised for specific subsections of internet users; for instance, creating internet 'fast lanes' for specific types of content like video streaming, or charging content creators or users money for faster access.

Many countries have adopted net neutrality, effectively counting the internet as a public utility alongside electricity and water.

Who supports net neutrality outside the US?

The first country to enact net neutrality into law was Chile in 2010, and has since been joined by other countries such as Slovenia, Brazil and the Netherlands.

In August 2016 the EU published net neutrality guidelines which outlined how national regulatory bodies of its member states should bring net neutrality rules into force. ISPs and telcos could, realistically, charge online services more money in order to ensure products run more smoothly on the internet, removing the cost burden which network providers experience.

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (Berec) has now stated that only some services can receive special treatment but only as long it does not interfere with or impede other services.

Telcos are allowed to provide "specialised services" like VoLTE, which needs sufficient bandwidth to work properly. Berec also added 5G services utlising network slicing as a new category.

The US Senate has today voted to save net neutrality rules, blocking Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai's proposal to roll back the Obama-era protections preventing companies from discriminating against certain types of internet traffic.

Today, senators voted to nullify the FCC's decision, with 52 in favour and 47 against. The decision has been celebrated by campaigners, but they have also warned that net neutrality is still in imminent danger.

Repealing net neutrality rules was one of Pai's primary objectives when he was appointed as chairman of the Commission by President Trump last year. The Commission approved Pai's plans to remove the regulations in December 2017, prompting outcry from internet freedoms groups.

Today the FCC's plans were overturned using powers granted by the Congressional Review Act (CRA) - legislation that allows Congress to roll back the decisions of federal agencies. The CRA also allowed Democratic senators the power to force a vote on the issue by gathering just 30 signatures.

In addition to every sitting Democrat senator, the motion to oppose the FCC's decision was supported by three Republican senators - Louisiana's John Kennedy, Maine's Susan Collins and Alaska's Lisa Murkowski.

However, while this is a victory for net neutrality advocates, it does not represent the end of the story.

In order to roll back Pai's plans permanently, campaigners will need to fight it in the House of Representatives, where the Republican party enjoys a much larger majority than it does in the Senate.

That means Republican politicians would likely need to break ranks for Democrats to score a win there.

The US Federal Communications Commission has voted to repeal net neutrality rules which blocked internet companies from prioritising certain internet traffic, leading to outrage from tech companies and digital rights groups.

The culmination of an aggressive campaign of deregulation spearheaded by FCC chairman Ajit Pai, the Republican-controlled communications watchdog voted to repeal the Obama-era rules by 3-2, stripping out the 'Title II' designation that meant internet providers had to be treated like utilities providers.

The Commission's two serving Democrats - both of whom were also serving on the Commission when the rules were originally passed - made statements condemning the decision.

"I dissent," said Commissioner Mignon Clyburn; "I dissent from this fiercely-spun, legally-lightweight, consumer-harming, corporate-enabling Destroying Internet Freedom Order."

Commissioner Jessica Rosenworcel echoed the sentiments: "Net neutrality is internet freedom. I support that freedom. I dissent from this rash decision to roll back net neutrality rules. I dissent from the corrupt process that has brought us to this point. And I dissent from the contempt this agency has shown our citizens in pursuing this path today."

"This decision puts the Federal Communications Commission on the wrong side of history, the wrong side of the law, and the wrong side of the American public."

Advocates for net neutrality are already getting ready to continue the fight in the US court system, with attorney generals from multiple states including New York, California, Illinois and more pledging to sue the FCC, led by New York Attorney General Eric Schneiderman.

While the fight over net neutrality has drawn attention from around the world, the FCC's decision will not have any immediate impact on anyone outside the US. The EU, for example, has its own net neutrality regulations preventing practises like charging extra for data roaming. It does, however, put future innovation at risk of being stifled.

By removing these regulations, the FCC has freed up internet companies to treat internet traffic however they want. Net neutrality supporters argue that this will allow them to slow down or even block traffic from certain sites or services.

Major US broadband provider NBCUniversal, for example, will now be free to block access to streaming services like Netflix in order to force users towards Hulu, which the company part-owns with other media conglomerates.

Experts have also warned of the possibility of the internet being carved up into 'fast lanes' and 'slow lanes'; with net neutrality gone, wealthy companies can pay ISPs in exchange for delivering their services to customers faster, which could lead to smaller companies being unable to compete with large organisations.

Opponents of net neutrality, on the other hand, have argued that the rules put ISPs off from investing in broadband networks.

"The internet wasn't broken in 2015. We were not living in some digital dystopia," FCC chairman Ajit Pai said. "The main problem consumers have with the internet is not and has never been that their internet provider is blocking access to content. It's been that they don't have access at all."

This is in spite of the fact that a report from advocate group Free Press found that "not a single publicly traded US ISP ever told its investors (or the SEC) that Title II negatively impacted its own investments specifically". In fact, some major providers even upped the amount of network investment they made after the rules were enacted.

Pai, as it turns out, was right about the repeal of net neutrality increasing investment in networks, but not by the big telcos. As a direct response to the vote, Motherboard and parent company Vice Media have pledged to create a community internet network based out of their New York headquarters.

The network will serve the local community, allowing businesses and individuals to connect to the web without going through a traditional ISP. The company will be documenting the process, in order to provide a guide for other organisations and communities looking to do the same.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) plans to hand over regulatory oversight of US internet service providers to another federal agency when net neutrality laws are revoked.

The FCC and the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) have entered into a 'Memorandum of Understanding', a draft agreement that will see the two agencies work together to ensure internet service providers stick to their promises to maintain a free and open internet, but critics believe enforcement would happen well after any infringements occur.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai announced plans last month to scale back current net neutrality laws that prevent ISPs from throttling speeds, restricting access to certain web content, or charging more for faster access. The rules, which were introduced under President Obama in 2015, are expected to be reversed when the Republican majority FCC gathers to vote on Thursday.

Pai said the move would "return jurisdiction to the FTC to police the conduct of ISPs", and that they would both "work together to take targeted action against bad actors", according to Reuters. The FCC has overseen ISPs under Obama's net neutrality rules, effectively classifying the internet as a public utility - this wouldn't be the case under the FTC.

Under the Restoring Internet Freedom Order, expected to replace net neutrality laws, agencies would no longer prevent ISPs from charging more for faster access, but instead require them to disclose whether they are placing restrictions on traffic, or favouring specific websites over others.

The agreement would see oversight return to the FTC, which will be able to investigate the activities of ISPs if they are considered to have deceived the agencies and customers over their practices.

However, the memorandum has been criticised by fellow FCC Commissioner Mignon Clyburn, who alongside Jessica Rosenworcel represents the Democratic minority on the commission.

"The agreement announced today between the FCC and FTC is a confusing, lacklustre, reactionary afterthought: an attempt to paper over weaknesses in the chairman's draft proposal repealing the FCC's 2015 net neutrality rules," said Clyburn, speaking to Ars Technica.

Critics also argue that the proposed changes essentially allow ISPs to commit to whatever guidelines they choose to follow and that ISPs are already making moves to take advantage of the relaxing of net neutrality regulations. Comcast, one of the largest providers in the US, immediately deleted a "no paid prioritisation" pledge from its website, on the same day that Pai announced his plans.

"Not only is the FCC eliminating basic net neutrality rules, but it's joining forces with the FTC to say it will only act when a broadband provider is deceiving the public," said Chris Lewis, VP of broadband advocacy group Public Knowledge. "This gives free reign to broadband providers to block or throttle your broadband service as long as they inform you of it."

More than 20 industry leaders and early internet pioneers have publicly denounced the FCC's proposals, including Apple co-founder Steve Wozniak and world wide web inventor Tim Berners-Lee.

In an open letter to senators and representatives who have oversight of the FCC, they said: "We are the pioneers and technologists who created and now operate the internet, and some of the innovators and business people who, like many others, depend on it for our livelihood.

"The FCC's rushed and technically incorrect proposed order to repeal net neutrality protections without any replacement is an imminent threat to the internet we worked so hard to create. It should be stopped."

22/11/2017: US to axe net neutrality

The US is set to repeal net neutrality laws established to prevent the monopolisation of internet traffic by larger companies.

The plans were unveiled by Federal Communications Commission (FCC) chairman Ajit Pai, a noted opponent of net neutrality rules who has already removed a number of regulations since his appointment by president Donald Trump.

The proposal will be voted on when the FCC meets on 14 December. The five-seat body is currently controlled by a Republican majority, and Pai's plans are expected to be approved with few issues.

"For almost 20 years," Pai said in a statement, "the internet thrived under the light-touch regulatory approach established by President Clinton and a Republican Congress."

"Under my proposal, the federal government will stop micromanaging the internet. Instead, the FCC would simply require internet service providers to be transparent about their practices so that consumers can buy the service plan that's best for them."

The FCC currently classifies internet providers as utilities - meaning that they are not allowed to artificially limit the speeds of certain web traffic or to charge certain companies more than others to allow customers to access them.

In practice, the removal of net neutrality rules means that US broadband providers could be free to throttle internet speeds for customers trying to access websites and services that aren't their commercial partners, effectively creating 'fast lanes' and 'slow lanes'.

For example, if a broadband provider owns its own video streaming service, it could greatly slow down - or even outright block - traffic to rival services like Netflix.

Equally, ISPs could charge customers for access to fast lanes that stream games or movies.

Alongside the net neutrality rollback, Pai has also announced his intentions to remove restrictions on telcos that prevent them from reaching more than 39% of US households - a further effort to prevent monopolies.

The move has been roundly condemned by digital rights and internet advocacy groups, who claim that removal of the rules will cripple competition and innovation, creating a market where only major companies will be able to afford speedy connections to customers.

"The FCC's new approach invites a future where only the largest Internet, cable, and telephone companies survive, while every start-up, small business, and new innovator is crowded out," said Electronic Frontier Foundation legal director Corynne McSherry, "and the voices of nonprofits and ordinary individuals are suppressed. Costs will go up, as ISPs take advantage of monopoly power to raise rates on edge providers and consumers alike."

Consumers appear to share this view. In fact, a poll of president Trump's own voter base conducted by competitive networks association Incompas in July found that 70% felt that the internet has improved in the two years since president Obama enacted the net neutrality regulations.

The prospect of repeal has also drawn criticism from major tech companies like Google, Facebook and Netflix, who fear the destruction of the 'open internet'.

"We are disappointed that the proposal announced today by the FCC fails to maintain the strong net neutrality protections that will ensure the internet remains open for everyone," Facebook vice president Erin Egan said in a statement.

Conversely, telcos welcomed the news, saying that the decision will put the reins of innovation back in the hands of private investors without being hampered by excessive government oversight.

US telecoms giant AT&T called the rules a "brief and ill-conceived experiment", and stated that consumers have little to fear.

"Make [sic] no doubt, the circulation of this order will bring the 'sky is falling' crowd to the fore, and they will foretell a day when websites will be blocked, content censored and internet access controlled by ISP overlords," wrote Joan Marsh, AT&T's executive vice president of regulatory & state external affairs. "Such claims, while great for fundraising, are as nonsensical now as they were a decade ago when they were first prophesied."

"Importantly, the adoption of this order will restore the careful balance needed between ensuring internet freedom while continuing to attract private investment in broadband facilities - investment that is essential to delivering on the promise of broadband for all Americans."

The FCC, for its part, has pledged that it will maintain a close watch on the practises of ISPs after the repeal.

According to the New York Times, officials said that the throttling of content could be viewed as a breach of competition regulations, and that such breaches would be investigated by the Justice Department or the Federal Trade Commission.

FCC chairman Ajit Pai has described Twitter and similar online platforms as being "part of the problem" and discriminatory when it comes to what content is accessible on the open internet, in an effort to justify his proposals to rollback net neutrality.

Pai, and two of his Republican allies on the commission, argued that despite the threats that ISPs could limit what content consumers are able to access if net neutrality laws were revoked, current online platforms are doing just that by filtering what is displayed on their sites.

"Recent experience shows that so-called edge providers are in fact deciding what content they see," said Pai, speaking at an event hosted by US political think tank R Street Institute on Tuesday. "These providers routinely block or discriminate against content they don't like."

Pai pointed to the example of when Twitter prevented Representative Marsha Blackburn from advertising her campaign video as it contained messages promoting the pro-life movement. He also referred to Twitter's recent actions to remove the 'verified' status from accounts, a move that some suggested has mainly targeted conservative users.

"In this way, edge providers are a much bigger actual threat to an open internet than broadband providers, especially when it comes to discrimination on the basis of viewpoint," added Pai. "They might cloak their advocacy in the public interest, but the real interest of these internet giants is in using the regulatory process to cement their dominance in the internet economy."

However, while there is a genuine concern around the sheer volume of content that social media sites and search engines control, consumers have the choice to switch platforms or shut down their profile pages. The prospect that providers may be are to throttle traffic to certain parts of the internet remains a far greater threat to consumers who are often stuck with whatever ISP services their area.

IT Pro has reached out to Twitter for its take on Pai's comments.

The FCC still faces significant backlash over its proposals to ditch net-neutrality laws brought in under President Obama, as many view it as a victory for large internet providers looking to charge more for their services.

Not only was the FCC accused of ignoring negative feedback during its public consultation period, the body was also slammed by New York attorney general Eric Schneiderman when he accused the FCC of ignoring an official investigation into the comments.

Over 200 tech firms, including Twitter, issued a letter to the FCC on Monday outlining their concerns, in what may be a last-ditch attempt to win over the commission before a vote on the proposals on 18 December.

28/11/2017: Tech firms launch last-ditch effort to stop net-neutrality roll-back

Airbnb, Foursquare, Pinterest, Tumblr, Twitter, and a list of more than 200 tech companies have called on the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to ditch its proposals to roll back net neutrality rules.

In a joint letter dated 27 November, the consortium of internet firms used Cyber Monday to highlight the need for an open internet to maintain online economic growth, something it argues is only possible so long as businesses are given equal opportunities to compete for consumers.

FCC Chairman Ajit Pai, appointed by President Donald Trump in January, aims to scrap rules created under President Obama that prevent internet providers from placing restrictions on the types of content that customers can access.

The letter argued that net neutrality encourages economic growth by allowing individuals to launch online businesses from their home, and trade with customers across the US.

"Disastrously, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) last week released a draft order that would end this open commerce by repealing the current net neutrality rules and eliminating the protections that keep the internet free and open for America's businesses and consumers," the letter stated.

The concern is that without net neutrality regulations, service providers would be able to favour specific websites or businesses by "throttling" speeds to certain domains they wish customers to avoid, or even forcing customers to pay extra to access their favourite services.

"This would put small and medium-sized businesses at a disadvantage and prevent innovative new ones from even getting off the ground," the letter added. "An internet without net neutrality protections would be the opposite of the open market, with a few powerful cable and phone companies picking winners and losers instead of consumers."

Shutterstock, Admiral, Etsy, Square, GitHub, Reddit, Mapbox, and Vimeo, as well as a large number of smaller internet e-commerce firms have put their names to Monday's letter.

FCC spokesman Mark Wigfield has since defended the planned changes in a statement to Reuters: "The internet and companies like Twitter, which signed the letter, thrived under the pre-2015 light-touch regulatory framework that governed Internet access.

"Chairman Pai wants to return to that framework so that we can increase investment in broadband networks and connect more Americans to the services that these companies offer online."

On 12th July thousands of tech firms held a mass protest against the changes which involved replicating some of the potential scenarios of an internet without net neutrality rules. This included pretending to force users to pay to access certain parts of a website, or slowing down the speed at which content was displayed on-screen.

Proposals to roll back net neutrality are due to be voted on when the FCC meets on 14 December. Given that the five-seat body has a Republican majority, the plans are expected to pass without issue.

You can't knock Donald Trump's record. He promised to unite America, and on 12 July he will have succeeded. Because on that day, internet companies as diverse as straight-laced Amazon and America's biggest porn site will join forces (or will have joined, depending on when you're reading this) to protest against the President's attack on net neutrality.

And those two companies aren't easy bedfellows.

Net neutrality is the well-established principle of treating all internet traffic equally. It means your broadband provider will give the same priority to traffic from your website as it would Facebook's or YouTube's or anyone else's.

President Trump's advisors are not keen on this legislation, most likely because it's not got enough dollar signs in it. Instead, they're siding with America's telecoms providers, who want the option to charge Netflix and YouTube -- and you and me to put their traffic in the 'fast lane'. They may even reserve the right to block websites altogether. So if, let's say, Trump.com paid an American provider $5m, it could slow or bar access to the websites of other hotel chains. Or even political rivals.

Scrapping net neutrality plays straight into the hands of the big boys. If, 10-15 years ago, internet providers were charging companies to make their content run smoothly over their networks, there would be no YouTube, no Netflix and no Spotify, because these startup companies wouldn't have been able to afford the fees. It's expensive enough to run servers to reach millions of people, let alone pay the broadband providers to make sure that content gets through.

As a group of 800 tech startups wrote in an open letter to the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) earlier this year: "Without net neutrality, the incumbents who provide access to the internet would be able to pick winners or losers in the market. They could impede traffic from our services in order to favour their own services or established competitors. Or they could impose new tolls on us, inhibiting consumer choice."

This makes it all the more staggering that companies such as Amazon and Netflix are leading the protests, because if they were acting entirely in their own interest, they could wipe out competition in a heartbeat. Both companies are rolling in cash and can afford life in the fast lane. They could consign rival video services to 'buffering' screens, making their own services as untouchable as BBC 1 and ITV were on British television a generation ago. There would literally be no competition.

Instead, they've done the decent thing and joined dozens of other companies in protesting against the threat to net neutrality. At the time of writing, it wasn't clear what form the protest would take, but I know what I'd love them to do: switch their sites off.

Do it for an hour, for an evening, or ideally for the whole day but make everyone realise what the net would be like if some of the massive sites we rely on simply weren't there.

Have they got the guts to do it?

I'm not sure, but Donald Trump has certainly got the nerve to push his legislation through. The cost of scrapping net neutrality will be far greater than a few hours offline.

This article originally appeared in Web User. Main image credit: Bigstock

Apple has sent a letter to the US Federal Communications Commission(FCC) defending net neutrality and advocating for an open internet.

Apple's US VP for public policy, Cynthia Hogan, submitted the letter and outlined why Apple thinks the FCC should "retain strong, enforceable open internet protections" through a number of key policy principles.

Hogan argues that it should be down to consumer choice and said: "Broadband providers should not block, throttle, or otherwise discriminate against lawful websites and services."

She claimed this has been a principle of the FCC's approach for over a decade.

Hogan is also against paid fast lanes as they could favour the transmission of one provider's content or services over another, and noted they would end up "fundamentally altering the internet as we know it today".

"The result would be an internet with distorted competition where online providers are driven to reach deals with broadband providers or risk being stuck in the slow lane and losing customers due to lower quality service," she expalined, detailing how theinternet would change should net neutrality be abandoned.

Hogan said that, worst of all, broadband providers would pick "internet winners and losers" based on the providers priorities instead of quality of service.

Highlighting the benefits of net neutrality, Hogan also underlined that an open internet fosters innovation and investment: "...internet openness, investment, and innovation are mutually reinforcing - to the benefit of consumers, productivity, and overall economic growth."

Hogan finished her letter with: "...the internet is too important to consumers and too essential to innovation to be left unprotected and uncertain."

Yesterday it emerged that a US House Committee canceled a net neutrality hearing after companies that were invited to take part did not say they would attend. It was due to take place on 7 September but companies, such as Facebook or Verizon, did not give the committee any indication that they would go to the event.

Thousands of websites and tech firms came together on 12 July for a net neutrality protest where they simulated what it would be like for a user to access their websites. This meant pretending to charge more to access their services on the internet.

31/08/2017: US House Committee cancels net neutrality hearing

A US House Committee has canceled a net neutrality hearing after companies that were invited did not say they would attend.

The hearing was due to take place on 7 September in Washington and was organised by the US House Energy and Commerce Committee, according to Reuters.

The CEOs of companies such as Alphabet, Facebook, AT&T and Verizon were invited but did not confirm they would attend the event.

Zach Hunter, a spokesperson for committee chairman Greg Walden, said: "As negotiations progress on a permanent solution for net neutrality that ensures a free and open internet, the committee will postpone the original hearing in order to allow talks between stakeholders to continue."

Reuters claims that Republican lawmakers wanted CEOs from tech companies and internet providers to testify in public to try and raise support for the proposal. Other companies invited to the hearing include Netflix, Charter and Comcast.

The FCC, under Donald Trump, is trying to scrap net neutrality guidelines put in place in 2015. This could allow internet service providers to decide what customers can access on the internet depending on how much they pay. Republicans will consider a bill next month which may allow the FCC to put its proposal into effect.

Thousands of websites and tech firms came together on 12 July for a net neutrality protest. They simulated what it would be like for users to try and access their content if the FCC succeed, which meant pretending that users had to pay a charge to access their website.

Tech giants such as Amazon, Netflix and Mozilla have argued in the past that overturning net neutrality would result in customers having to pay more to access services on the internet. The Electronic Frontier Foundation claimed the proposal would give ISPs a "frightening" amount of control over a user's internet experience too.

07/06/2017:GitHub, Amazon and Mozilla plan to protest net neutrality changes

Some of the biggest technology companies in the world are set to protest against changes to net neutrality legislation proposed by US President Donald Trump's government.

Corporations including GitHub, Amazon, Mozilla, Vimeo, Kickstarter, Reddit and the Open Technology Institute are opposing Trump's plan to get rid of net neutrality guidelines put in place in 2015, which could mean internet service providers would be able to decide what customers see on the internet and what they don't, based upon how much their customers pay.

The tech giants claimed the move would result in a hike of the fees customers have to pay to access services and blocking websites they don't want you to see. They also claimed the move is against free speech, and urged advocates of web freedom to participate in an online protect on 12 July.

Led by Fight for the Future, Freepress Action Fund and Demand Progress, the online protest aims to persuadethe government and the companies pushing for the lifting of net neutrality guidelines to change their stances.

As part of the protest, all the companies involved will change their websites to show support for net neutrality, which could include serving different pages to show what they say may happen if Trump and the overhauled Federal Communications Commission get their way.

"The internet has given more people a voice than ever before, and we're not going to let the FCC take that power away from us," Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future told the Guardian. "Massive online mobilization got us the strong net neutrality protections that we have now, and we intend to fight tooth and nail to defend them."

26/05/2017:500,000 anti-net neutrality comments deemed fake

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) received a complaint yesterday from a group of individuals who claim their names were used to create fake comments in support of scrapping net neutrality rules.

The FCC website has received over 2.7 million comments on its website so far in what was an attempt to understand public sentiment around net neutrality and the regulation of internet service providers. The rules, which were introduced under President Barack Obama following a massive campaign, are now being scrapped under the Trump administration.

However, it appears that many of the comments on the FCC's website could be fake spam created by supporters of the government's anti-net neutrality approach.

In a letter addressed to FCC chairman Ajit Pai yesterday, 14 individuals claim that their names and personal information were used to make comments, and have called upon the body to investigate the issue, which violates a US law about making false statements.

"We are disturbed by reports that indicate you have no plans to remove these fraudulent comments from the public docket," the letter stated. "Whoever is behind this stole our names and addresses, publicly exposed our private information without our permission, and used our identities to file a political statement we did not sign onto."

"While it may be convenient for you to ignore this, given that it was done in an attempt to support your position, it cannot be the case that the FCC moves forward on such a major public debate without properly investigating this known attack."

It is thought that as many as 450,000 comments have been created fraudulently using the personal information of other individuals.

Joel Mullaney, a software engineer from Massachusetts, told the Guardian that he discovered a Reddit thread discussing the fraudulent use of names and postal addresses attacking net neutrality.

His own name was associated with this comment: "The unprecedented regulatory power the Obama administration imposed on the internet is smothering innovation, damaging the American economy and obstructing job creation".

"It was pretty ridiculous," said Mullaney, speaking to the Guardian. "That's pretty much the exact opposite of what I think.

IT Pro has contacted the FCC for comment.

The group has called upon the FCC to notify the appropriate authorities and disclose any information it may have on who was responsible for posting the comments.

19/05/2017: The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has voted to begin the process of dismantling the net neutrality laws that govern fair and free internet access.

The FCC's members voted two-to-one in favour of a review of the rules, which will aim to heavily loosen or abolish many of the protections established under Obama. One of the primary goals is removing the classification of ISPs as 'Title II' carriers, which means they cannot be as heavily regulated.

The first stage of the process is the filing of a 'Notice of Proposed Rulemaking' (NPRM), outlining the changes the FCC are seeking to make. The Commission will be accepting comments and feedback from the general public and stakeholders for three months, before composing a final order and then voting on its implementation.

Trump-appointed FCC chairman Ajit Pai is a vocal and vociferous opponent of the current rules, arguing that they strangle innovation and deter companies from making infrastructure investments.

"For almost twenty years, the internet flourished under a light-touch regulatory approach. During this time, the internet underwent rapid, and unprecedented, growth," the NPRM stated. "The Commission's 2015 decision to subject ISPs to Title II utility-style regulations risks that innovation, serving ultimately to threaten the open internet it purported to preserve."

Although Pai and fellow Republican FCC member Michael O'Rielly voted in favour of the proposals, the Commission's third member, Democrat Mignon Clyburn, was fiercely opposed. He delivered a scathing rebuke of the plans, calling it "a hollow theory of trickle-down internet economics" that "contains ideological interpretive whiplash".

"If you unequivocally trust that your broadband provider will always put the public interest, over their self-interest or the interest of their stockholders, then the 'Destroying Internet Freedom' NPRM is for you."

Net neutrality rules, which govern whether or not broadband providers are allowed to charge more for certain traffic types than others, have frequently been hailed as essential for maintaining an open internet by digital rights activists.Many worry that if the rules are rescinded, cable providers will take advantage to promote their own apps and services, squeezing smaller rivals out of the market by charging them more to get their content to consumers.

For example, US ISPs Comcast and Time Warner both own stakes in video streaming service Hulu. Without the protection of net neutrality rules, they would be free to charge Netflix more to deliver its service to users, or to deliver it at a slower speed compared to Hulu, in an effort to force more people onto their own service.

This may appear like an issue that only affects the US, but it may have troubling implications for the rest of the world, encouraging heavier deregulation by other countries. It also raises worrying questions for anyone with a digital business serving US customers, as the new rules could adversely affect the provision of their services.

While Pai and other net neutrality opponents argue that the regulations harm infrastructure investment, a report this month from opposing advocacy group Free Press stated that by ISPs own admission, the Title II classification has had no measurable impact on their investments since it was introduced in 2015.

"Financial and marketplace evidence demonstrates that the FCC's 2015 Open Internet Order is an absolute success, accomplishing its stated goal of preserving and promoting the onlineecosystem's 'virtuous cycle of investment'," the report said."ISP investments accelerated following the vote. Investments in the edge, including those by online video providers and edge computing firms, are up as well. More new US 'over-the-top' video services launched in the two years following the vote than in the seven years prior."

House Republicans have asked leaders of technology companies and telecom service providers to appear before Congress to deliver their arguments on net neutrality, in a bid to replace the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC's) current rules.

The FCC, backed by President Donald Trump, is currently trying to scrap net neutrality regulations it introduced under former President Barack Obama that prevent internet service providers from throttling traffic to specific websites, such as Netflix and YouTube.

Ajit Pai, the FCC's chief under Trump, wants to roll back net neutrality rules that classify internet service providers as common carriers, who are therefore subject to rules governing the internet as a public utility, preventing them from providing 'fast lanes' for internet traffic. However, many technology companies believe the rules are fundamental to ensuring an equal playing field for companies to operate in.

Previous FCC regulations on the matter have already been challenged in the courts by internet providers, and while FCC changes to the rules would likely be passed given its Republican majority, net neutrality supporters could throw up legal roadblocks.

The current FCC campaign marks the third time in recent years that the group has presided over net neutrality, but given that the body is appointed by the incumbent president, internet policy could continue to change depending on which party is in power.

To end the battle between pro and anti-net neutrality camps, the chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Committee, Republican Greg Walden, has asked companies including Google, Facebook, AT&T and Verizon to testify at a hearing on 7 September, with a view to getting Congress to rule on the matter.

In a statement released on Tuesday, Walden said: "It's time for Congress to call a halt on the back-and-forth and set clear net neutrality ground rules for the internet. With almost everyone in agreement about fundamental principles to prevent anti-competitive behaviour such as throttling and blocking, I think we are closer than ever to achieving a lasting solution."

"The time has come to get everyone to the table and get this figured out," added Walden. Other invitees include the heads of Comcast, Charter Communications, and Netflix.

Fellow Republican and vice chairman Marsha Blackburn, said the original FCC net neutrality ruling in 2015 under President Obama "pushed far beyond its legal authority" and that it created an "unstable set of mandates and a mountain of unanswered questions".

"The ensuring drama has benefitted certain interest groups but has been detrimental for American innovators and consumers, who experience and reliance on the internet are diminished by the lack of clear and predictable rules," added Blackburn.

The hope is that a joint debate on the subject will allow both sides to reshape the current regulations and "build new rules from the ground up" through Congress, according to Walden.

Both sides of the argument have expressed a will for Congress to intervene, with laws passed by Congress tending to be more robust than judgements made by agencies.

Picture: Bigstock

Tech giants such as Amazon, Netflix and Facebook are joining in with a host of activists, free speech groups and more in a day of protest against the Trump administration's plans to roll back rules on 'net neutrality'.

The protest is taking place as Ajit Pai, the new head of the Federal Communication Commission (FCC), is preparing to dismantle tough rules protecting internet access in the US following pressure from cable companies and internet service providers.

Pai is a longtime critic of the 2015 'open internet' rules which he says came about because the FCC "succumbed to pressure from the White House". He said a heavy-handed regulatory framework was imposed on all ISPs and compares them to "utility-style regulations". Pai, who was designated chairman of the US telecoms and media watchdog by president Trump in January 2017, proposes a return to "the Clinton-era light touch framework that has proven to be successful". Pai has named his proposal "Restoring Internet Freedom".

The Electronic Frontier Foundation, a digital civil liberties organisation, claims that the proposal would leave the door open to ISPs creating "internet fast lanes" that prioritize certain websites over others. It called for websites to "give the world a preview of what the internet will look like if the FCC goes forward with its plan to dismantle open internet protections".

The EFF wants to do this to highlight that giving up protections for net neutrality will give ISPs a "frightening" amount of control over a user's internet experience. To take action, users can use the EFF's web form to send a letter to the FCC, who are accepting first comments on their proposal until 17 July.

The websites involved in the protest will be simulating what it will be like for users if they try and access their content if the FCC won't let net neutrality be. This includes pretending that users will have to pay a charge to access their websites which could come into effect should Pai succeed.

According to Battle for the Net there are thousands of websites involved in the protest, including heavyweights such as Google, AirBnB, Twitter and Snapchat. Also involved is OkCupid, Vimeo and, one of the world's most visited sites, Pornhub. To see a list of some of the companies involved head over to Battle for the Net which also details how websites and apps can get involved.

"If we lose net neutrality, the internet will never be the same," said Evan Greer, campaign director of Fight for the Future, one of the leading groups behind the protest, "No one wants their cable company to have control over what they can see and do online. Internet users know that their freedom is worth fighting for, and on July 12, we'll fight to win."

Image source: Battle for the Net

Net neutrality campaigners have been dealt another blow, as FCC chairman Ajit Pai confirmed his commitment to reversing the agency's stance on the issue.

Speaking at Barcelona's Mobile World Congress (MWC), the newly-appointed chief of the US telecoms watchdog doubled down on his previous pledges to loosen industry regulations, The Verge reports, claiming they stifle innovation and competition.

"Our new approach injected tremendous uncertainty into the broadband market," Pai said during his MWC speech yesterday.

"Today, the torch at the FCC has been passed to a new generation, dedicated to renewal as well as change," Pai said. "We are confident in the decades-long, cross-party consensus on light-touch internet regulation ... and we are on track to returning to that successful approach."

Campaigners argue that net neutrality - the principle by which internet operators are not allowed to give preferential treatment to traffic from certain sources - is essential for maintaining a free and open internet.

Pai, however, is an outspoken advocate of a 'hands-off' approach to industry governance, and prefers giving telcos as much freedom as possible to pursue decisions based on business interests.

"We know from two decades of experience that utility-style regulation is not necessary to achieving that goal," he added, according to The Verge.

He also used his speech to confirm the FCC has dropped its investigation into free data offerings, known as zero-ratings, according to Ars Technica.

"Free data plans have proven to be popular among consumers, particularly those with low incomes, because they allow consumers to enjoy content without data limits or charges. They have also enhanced competition," he said.

Picture: Bigstock

President Donald Trump has confirmed the appointment of an anti-net neutrality politician to chairman of the US Federal Communications Commission (FCC), drawing criticism from digital rights campaigners.

The FCC, which is the US telecommunications watchdog, is in charge of regulating America's cable and broadband providers, and in 2015 famously voted in favour of upholding net neutrality, which states that US internet service providers (ISPs) cannot deliberately throttle the internet speeds of specific apps and services.

Consumer groups fear that without these rules, ISPs - which often operate what amount to regional monopolies - will be able to simply choke off access to the online services of competitors, driving smaller rivals out of business.

Republican and new chairman Ajit Pai, however, is a vehement opponent of these principles and has vowed to dismantle them as part of his tenure as FCC chair. "During the Trump administration, we will shift from playing defense at the FCC to going on offense," he said late last year. "We need to fire up the weed whacker and remove those rules that are holding back investment, innovation, and job creation."

Pai was appointed as the FCC's senior Republican party commissioner in 2012, after being employed by telecoms industry giants such as Verizon. Major industry players have praised his appointment, such as Comcast senior executive vice president David Cohen.

"We commend [Pai's] tireless efforts to develop and support policies that benefit American consumers and spur greater investment and innovation in broadband technologies to connect all Americans and drive job creation," he said in response to the news.

Pai has previously noted that a merger between Cohen's company and major rival Time Warner Cable - a deal that was heavily opposed for being anti-competitive and bad for consumers - would be more likely to be approved by a Republican administration.

He was slammed by the president of advocacy campaign group Free Press, Craig Aaron, according to Reuters, who said that "[Pai]s never met a mega-merger he didn't like or a public safeguard he didn't try to undermine".

The news has met with similarly severe opposition from both smaller internet companies and net neutrality advocates, many of whom have taken this as a sign that Trump will be gutting these policies at the earliest opportunity.

"If there were any doubt, Pai's appointment proves net neutrality is firmly in Trump's crosshairs," said iPass CEO Gary Griffiths. "On the campaign trail, Trump was a vociferous opponent of net neutrality and has proceeded to staff his FCC transition with ardent net neutrality opponents such as Pai."

Trump has two more slots to fill on the five-chair committee, and while he can only appoint one more Republican due to balance regulations, the FCC is nonetheless set to end up in Republican hands.

"One thing is for certain," Griffiths said; "the next four years promises to be a turbulent time for the open internet - which has never seen a threat quite like this."

Three will push ahead with plans to introduce ad-blocking on its network, despite EU opposition.

The mobile operator plans to roll out ad-blocking in 2017, claiming mobile ads are intrusive and appear in front of users without their agreement.

However, the EU's Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (Berec) has now released guidance saying that network providers cannot meddle with any internet services or apps their customers use.

The guidance reads: "Providers of internet access services shall not block, slow down, alter, restrict, interfere with, degrade or discriminate between specific content, applications or services."

The guidance is for national regulators though, rather than being directly applicable to network providers, and it's telecoms regulator Ofcom's job to interpret Berec's guidance and choose how it enforces the guidance in the UK.

An Ofcom spokesman told IT Pro: "Ofcom will monitor compliance with the new rules, and look into any complaints received. We will consider any potential breaches as they arise in accordance with our interpretation of the Regulation, and drawing upon the Berec Guidelines to inform our approach."

As its statement suggests, Ofcom will wait and see whether network providers' plans represent a breach of the Berec guidance.

As a result, IT Pro understands that Three will press on with ad-blocking plans it first trialled in June, when it stated its intention to "revolutionise the mobile advertising experience" of its users.

If its plans remain unchanged, they would involve making the advertiser pay for data charges related to ads, not the user, ensuring customers' security and privacy, and ensuring that the advertising received by customers is relevant and interesting to them.

When Three announced its plans, CMO for the UK, Tom Malleschitz, said: "This is the next step in our journey to make mobile ads better for our customers.

"The current ad model is broken. It frustrates customers, eats up their data allowance and can jeopardise their privacy. Something needs to change."

Three declined to comment on the story, and it is not known when in 2017 it will enable network-level ad-blocking, although IT Pro understands the service would be opt-in for all users.

The Internet Advertising Bureau (IAB) said in February that ad-blockers could force users to pay for content they currently receive for free.

Ad-blocking services are predicted to cost publishers 19 billion by 2020, according to a study by Juniper Research in May, with the number of ad-block users rising 41 per cent year-on-year in 2015.

The organisation that represents all the EU's communications regulators, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (Berec), has published guidelines on how ISPs and telecoms companies should treat data.

The publication outlines how NRAs (National Regulatory Authorities) should implement rules on net neutrality. Until now, ISPs and telcos could, in theory, charge online services more to ensure products run more smoothly over the internet.

The final document is not that different to draft guidelines published earlier in June. It said it had received an "unprecedented" number of contributions, 481,547 in total.

"In finalising the guidelines, Berec took into account the many responses received, which were often arguing in opposite directions," Berec said, in a statement.

"Some stakeholders wanted Berec to go further on certain topics whilst others wanted Berec to be less prescriptive, depending on their respective perspective. Berec considers this a signal that, in many areas, Berec's initial approach had struck an appropriate balance in accordance with BEREC's interpretation of the regulation."

Now Berec has stated that only some services can get special treatment as long as it doesn't impede others. The guidelines allow telcos to provide "specialised services" such as VoLTE, which require sufficient bandwidth in order to function properly. Berec also added 5G services using network slicing as a new category.

It also clarified that specialised services should not provide connectivity to the internet and these services should be logically separated' from IAS [internet access services]."

"Our rules, and today's guidelines, avoid fragmentation in the single market, create legal certainty for businesses and make it easier for them to work across border," said European Commission vice-president Andrus Ansip and European commissioner Gnther Oettinger.

"They also ensure that the internet remains an engine for innovation and that advanced technologies and Internet of Things services like connected vehicles as well as 5G applications are developed today, and will flourish in the future."

But Cable Europe, the trade association that represents broadband operators, said that it was "crucial that the Regulation is implemented in the spirit as well as the letter".

"Much rests now on the use of these guidelines by regulators, which whilst allowing National Regulatory Authorities the necessary autonomy could result in a negative outcome for progressive innovation," said Cable Europe executive chairman, Matthias Kurth.

"We urge the NRAs to embrace the ambitions of the Digital Single Market, and look forward to working with them as we turn the potential of Europe's digital future into a reality".

A coalition of almost 20 major telecoms providers, including BT, Ericsson, Nokia, Orange, Telefonica, Deutsche Telekom and Vodafone, have offered to roll out 5G networks across Europe, if the EU weakens its open internet rules.

The group has drawn up a 5G manifesto', in which they promise to start extensive tests of 5G technology across Europe by 2018, and launch 5G on a commercial scale in at least one city in every EU member state by 2020.

However, the telecoms companies argued net neutrality regulation will involve "dangers" harming returns on investment, and want to see the rules softened.

Net neutrality is the principle that internet service providers (ISPs) should treat all data equally, and not discriminate or apply different charges, regardless of the content or user.

In their 5G manifesto, the telcos argue: "The EU must reconcile the need for open internet [net neutrality] with pragmatic rules that foster innovation. The telecom industry warns that current net neutrality guidelines create significant uncertainties around 5G return on investment.

"Investments are therefore likely to be delayed unless regulators take a positive stance on innovation and stick to it."

The European Commission rejected amendments aimed at strengthening net neutrality when the legislation was passed last year, and the Commission's digital economy chief, Gunther Oettinger, has expressed his support of the new manifesto.

"I very much welcome the 5G Manifesto and discussions today with the high-level industry group," he said. "These will help us focus on the key levers to ensure European digital leadership in 5G. I will come forward with a 5G Action Plan in the autumn."

While 5G networks are not yet a reality, the technology is expected to have a major role to play in the development of autonomous cars, personal healthcare, transport, smart cities, and other areas, such as media.

India's telecoms regulator blocked Facebook's Free Basics internet service today, saying the scheme violates net neutrality.

Campaigners had complained that Free Basics went against net neutrality laws by providing access to a select few websites and online services, with the debate gathering much publicity in India.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI) today released the Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, saying: "These Regulations intend to make data tariffs for access to the internet to be content agnostic.

"The Authority has largely been guided by the principles of net neutrality seeking to ensure that consumers get unhindered and non-discriminatory access to the internet."

The regulations state that internet service providers cannot charge "discriminatory tariffs" based on content, and TRAI warned that companies breaking this rule will face "financial disincentives".

Last month, 30 non-profit companies and net neutrality advocates in India wrote an open letter to Facebook, after TRAI paused the roll out of Free Basics.

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg initially launched the project to provide an "on ramp to the internet" for people in emerging markets, giving them access to things such as financial services and health information.

But the scheme has come consistently under fire from digital rights groups, with Facebook accused of violating net neutrality laws with a two-tiered internet service.

28/01/2016: How are people really using Facebook's Internet.org initiative?

New light has been shed on how some users have been utilising Facebook's Free Basics intiative, with many reportedly using it to cut data costs, rather than just as a way to get online.

Despite being intended as a way for users in developing countries to access basic online services such as Wikipedia and weather information, Buzzfeed reports that some customers pay for cellular data in addition to using Free Basics.

"The majority of those customers also used paid data the month they used Free Basics," Antonia Graham, Panama-based mobile operator Digicel's head of group public relations, told the site. "They use Free Basics when they have no credit."

Similarly, almost all customers of Iraqi telecommunication firm Korek are already online, according to a manager at the company, who said: "They want Free Basics as an addition to plans they already have. These are people who are already online."

Despite this, exact figures on how Free Basics is being used, or even how many people are using it across the 37 countries in which it is available, have not been released by Facebook.

07/01/2016: Facebook's Internet.org initiative comes under fire

Facebook has come under fire for alleged violations of net neutrality laws by its Free Basics initiative in India.

An open letter signed by 30 non-profit companies and net neutrality advocates levels allegations against the company, concerning the Free Basics scheme to provide free internet being stalled by the Regulatory Authority of India (TRAI).

TRAI has paused the roll out of Facebook's initiative to examine its adherence to existing net neutrality laws and protections.

But Zuckerberg, the letter claims, has encouraged users to take action against this ruling, blaming it on a "small, vocal group of critics" who oppose the project. Dubbing Facebook's claims reliant on "straw man arguments", the letter criticises the company's methods.

"You have said that 'connecting the world is one of the greatest challenges of our generation.' We all agree," the letter stated. "We also believe that a connectivity agenda must respect the right of all to equally access, receive, and impart information.

"For this reason, we are concerned about Facebook's recent attacks on the millions of internet users in India and around the world who have fought, and who continue to fight, for net neutrality."

The letter does also acknowledge many of the things Facebook has done to improve the situation, amending issues relating to things such as security, privacy and transparency.

"As India and other countries determine their net neutrality rules," it continues, "we ask that Facebook meaningfully and respectfully engages with ordinary users, activists, and advocates without engaging in unfounded and divisive attacks."

25/09/2015: Facebook's Internet.org initiative renamed and expanded

Facebook's controversial free internet project, Internet.org, has been given a lick of paint in the form of a new name, additional developers and a greater commitment to security going forwards.

Now dubbed Free Basics by Facebook, the scheme was first launched by Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg in 2013 with the aim of providing free internet access to residents in various developing countries across the globe. Through the app and website, users gain access to a range of websites such as Google Search, Facebook and Wikipedia free of charge.

More than 1bn people currently have access to the free services across Asia, Africa and Latin America, the company announced in a blog post, with more than 60 additional services now available across 19 countries.

In addition to the new name, the Internet.org Platform launched for developers to create services that integrate with the project's requirements is now live, greatly expanding the number of sites users of the app and website can access.

Vision

Zuckerberg has described the initiative as an "on ramp to the internet" for disadvantaged people, particularly targeting emerging markets. This will give people essential access to financial services, health information and educational opportunities who might ordinarily go without.

"One thing I think it's easy to take for granted is that most people do not have access to the internet," Zuckerberg said. "It's 2.7bn [with internet access] and it's growing slower than you'd imagine.

"If you increase the number of people in emerging markets with internet access, you can create 100m jobs [and bring about a] seven per cent drop in child mortality It's really early, [and] I don't want to say we have all the answers yet, but the early results are promising. We're proving the model can work."

Facebook, Ericsson, MediaTek, Nokia, Opera, Qualcomm and Samsung were founding partners of the project but, shortly after the launch, Zuckerberg admitted that it would take a while for Internet.org to generate any revenue.

Guy Rosen, product management director for Internet.org, said: "Over 85 per cent of the world's population live in areas with existing cellular coverage, yet only about 30 per cent of the total population accesses the internet.

"Affordability and awareness are significant barriers to internet adoption for many and today we are introducing the app to make the internet accessible to more people by providing a set of free services."

Back in March, the project's first solar-powered drone completed its mission after successfully flying over the UK. The unmanned aircraft will be used to beam internet access down to people from the sky.

"Aircraft like these will help connect the whole world because they can affordably serve the 10 per cent of the world's population that live in remote communities without existing internet infrastructure," said Zuckerberg.

Global innovation

The initiative was first trialled in the Philippines and Paraguay, with the number of people accessing the internet doubling for the latter shortly after it was made available.

It has since launched in Zambia, India, Ghana, Kenya, Tanzania and Columbia, with Zuckerberg announcing plans to launch the service in Europe in the near future. In total, the company hopes to take the project to 100 countries around the world.

"We are working with operators, content partners, and governments from all over the world to address the barriers that prevent people from connecting and joining the knowledge economy," said Markku Makelainen, director of global operator partnerships at Facebook.

In a Facebook Q&A conducted in April, British entrepreneur Sir Richard Branson entered the conversation to ask about Internet.org.

"I share your view that it is crucial to connect the two-thirds of the world that don't currently have access to the internet," he said. "What do you think will be the biggest benefits of this?"

In response, the Facebook CEO said that a lack of global internet access is stalling innovation: "When we talk about connecting the world, most people talk about the clear benefits to all the people who will get internet access and don't have it today.

"Those benefits are many: access to education, health information, jobs and so on. Many people estimate that for every 1bn people we connect, we'll raise more than 100 out of poverty. But one thing that we often overlook in this discussion is how everyone who is already connected will benefit from having everyone [else] online."

Net neutrality

Digital rights groups have accused Facebook of violating net neutrality laws in an open letter signed by 67 separate organisations claiming Internet.org will create a two-tiered internet in addition to risking the privacy of its users.

They claim the approach to providing online access to underprivileged regions will promote some services over others, including the company's own social networking site. In order to use the full internet, disadvantaged users would have to pay for it.

It reads: "Facebook is improperly defining net neutrality in public statements building a walled garden in which the world's poorest people will only be able to access a limited set of insecure websites and services."

Speaking to those who had doubts about the project, a Facebook spokeswoman said: "We and our critics share a common vision of helping more people gain access to the broadest possible range of experiences and services on the internet. We are convinced that as more and more people gain access to the internet, they will see the benefits and want to use even more services.

"We believe this so strongly that we have worked with operators to offer basic services to people at no charge, convinced that new users will quickly want to move beyond basic services and pay for more diverse, valuable services."

Another open letter, this time signed by 30 non-profits and advocates for net neutrality, made similar claims.

Zuckerberg has expressed his support of net neutrality in the past, writing in a Facebook post: "I support net neutrality because, at its core, it's about preventing discrimination. Net neutrality means we can use the services we want, and innovators can build the services we need.

"Connecting everyone is about preventing discrimination too. More than 4bn people don't have access to the internet and the opportunities it brings. If we connect them, we'll lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty. If we want everyone to share the opportunities we have, then it's our responsibility to bring everyone online in a way that respects an inclusive net neutrality."

Other roadblocks

The initiative has encountered a number of problems since it was announced, with Facebook abandoning plans to use satellite-based broadband delivery in June this year. Previously, the company reportedly planned to spend up to $1bn (644m) to build and launch a satellite that would allow places without data infrastructure to access the Internet.org services.

Some security concerns had previously been raised around Internet.org not featuring support for HTTPS, the secure communication protocol. This has been rectified since and, in the latest Free Basics update, services and websites will encrypt information "wherever possible".

HTTPS will now also be supported in the web version as well as the app.

There is also suspicion about how Facebook and its telco partners might use the data collected by its apps and services, violating its users' privacy with a "lack of transparency" in this area.

Digital rights groups have accused Facebook's Internet.org project of violating net neutrality.

The social network's CEO, Mark Zuckerberg, wants to bring free internet to two-thirds of people across the world, citing benefits like better access to education, health information and jobs.

But an open letter signed by 67 separate organisations claims the project will create a two-tiered internet as well as risk the privacy of its users.

The letter points out that in its current form, Internet.org would only provide users with a handful of free sites and applications, which are approved by Facebook and the ISPs it works with on the scheme.

This approach promotes some web services over others, and drastically reduces the portion of the internet people are able to access, the letter states.

"Facebook is improperly defining net neutrality in public statements and building a walled garden in which the world's poorest people will only be able to access a limited set of insecure websites and services," the letter said.

To access the full internet, users would be required to pay for access a strategy the digital rights groups said "fails to acknowledge the economic reality for millions of people".

The current implementation of Internet.org also doesn't support HTTPS, the secure communication protocol, but Zuckerberg has stated that it will incorporate this in an update.

However, the digital rights groups remain concerned over user privacy claiming Facebook and its partners will mine users' data.

"It is likely Internet.org collects user data via apps and services," it read. "There is a lack of transparency about how that data are used by Internet.org and its telco partners."

The open letter is a further blow to the scheme after the Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) aired similar grievances earlier this week.

The online rights campaign group wrote: "There's a real risk that the few websites that Facebook and its partners select for Internet.org (including, of course, Facebook itself) could end up becoming a ghetto for poor users instead of a stepping stone to the larger internet."

Earlier this month, the social network committed to making Internet.org a platform on which developers could build apps, saying the initial services provided in the project were just the first step.

A Facebook spokeswoman said: "We and our critics share a common vision of helping more people gain access to the broadest possible range of experiences and services on the internet. We are convinced that as more and more people gain access to the internet, they will see the benefits and want to use even more services.

"We believe this so strongly that we have worked with operators to offer basic services to people at no charge, convinced that new users will quickly want to move beyond basic services and pay for more diverse, valuable services."

Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg has shown his support to net neutrality, but said it isn't possible for internet providers to offer everything for free.

Zuckerberg voiced his opinion in a video designed to recruit more websites to join the scheme, after a net neutrality debate kicked off around Facebook's Internet.org initiative.

Internet.org gives people in a number of developing countries, including Zambia, India, Colombia, Guatemala, Tanzania, Kenya, Ghana, the Philippines and Indonesia "free basic [mobile internet] services that are simpler, use less data and work on all low-end phones."

Networks are supporting the service because they believe that offering residents a taster of the internet for free will motivate them to sign up to paid-for services.

At the moment, Wikipedia, UNICEF, BBC News, Facebook and Accuweather all have apps on Internet.org, but Facebook is now opening the limited list up to other content providers, as long as they can run on feature phones and encourage the use of the wider internet. They must also not be data-intensive.

In a Facebook post, Zuckerberg said: "I support net neutrality because, at its core, it's about preventing discrimination. Net neutrality means we can use the services we want, and innovators can build the services we need. Connecting everyone is about preventing discrimination too. More than 4 billion people don't have access to the internet and the opportunities it brings. If we connect them, we'll lift hundreds of millions of people out of poverty."

"If we want everyone to share the opportunities we have, then it's our responsibility to bring everyone online in a way that respects an inclusive net neutrality," he said.

A US regulator guaranteed the future of net neutrality yesterday, approving rules to govern the internet like a public utility following years of fierce debate.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) voted three to two to adopt rules that ensure a free and open internet for all, quashing telco hopes of creating internet fast lanes' where some web content can be accessed faster for a fee.

FCC chairman and former telecoms industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler said: "The American people reasonably expect and deserve an internet that is fast, fair, and open. Today they get what they deserve: strong, enforceable rules that will ensure the Internet remains open, now and in the future.

"There are three simple keys to our broadband future. Broadband networks must be fast. Broadband networks must be fair. Broadband networks must be open."

The new rules will ban any fast lanes', which the FCC claimed would divide the country into haves' and have-nots' depending on their ability to pay for faster access.

Blocking legal content would also be banned, a concern raised by internet activists who believed telcos would prevent access to rival services.

Also illegal under the new legislation is any move to slow down or degrade access to any legal content on the web.

"These enforceable, bright-line rules assure the rights of internet users to go where they want, when they want, and the rights of innovators to introduce new products without asking anyone's permission," said Wheeler.

The FCC heard from such luminaries as World Wide Web inventor Sir Tim Berners-Lee, who told the court in a video link that guaranteeing an open internet would protect innovation and free speech.

President Barack Obama praised the decision in a statement last night after issuing guidance last year about how he'd like the internet to be regulated.

He said: "I ran for office because I believed that nothing can stand in the way of millions of voices calling for change.

"That's the backbone of our democracy and you've proven that this timeless principle is alive and well in our digital age."

However, broadband providers reacted bitterly to the news, with the National Cable and Telecommunications Association claiming the rules would raise broadband costs and reduce infrastructure investment.

The association said telcos would be forced to spend more on meeting the new rules and regulations, leaving them with less money to invest in new coverage or services.

Meanwhile Verizon released a statement on the ruling in typewriter font, saying the decision "imposes 1930s rules on the internet".

However, the FCC has so far declined to publish a full copy of the new rules, partly because it says it must respond to Republican dissent first.

Providers like Verizon and AT&T are likely to issue legal challenges against the ruling.

Three more UK internet service providers (ISPs) have shown their support for Net Neutrality plans by signing the Broadband Stakeholder Group's (BSG) voluntary code, it has been revealed.

EE, Virgin Media and Vodafone were the last hold outs following BT, BSkyB, KCOM, giffgaff, O2, Plusnet, TalkTalk, Tesco Mobile and Three all signing the Code of Practice in support of the Open Internet. As a result, all of the UK's leading ISPs have now backed Net Neutrality.

Matthew Evans, BSG CEO, said: "Unlike some countries where net neutrality has become a controversial topic for discussion, the UK benefits from a fiercely competitive market and high levels of transparency which together offer the best assurance of an Open Internet.

"The Code now provides an even stronger and more effective foundation, whilst also allowing for an environment where new business models for internet-based services which benefit consumer choice can thrive."

The code was first launched in 2012 by the BSG and, by signing, the ISPs are agreeing to conditions that include ensuring users can access all legal content, not discriminating against content providers for commercial reasons and remaining transparent about traffic management policies.

"The Code usefully supports open access to the internet and builds on previous commitments by ISPs to provide transparent information to consumers about their traffic management policies," Chair of the Communications Consumer Panel, Jo Connell, added.

"We are delighted that EE, Virgin and Vodafone have now agreed to become signatories. The Code has gained significant interest internationally as a positive example of industry responding to a developing consumer need."

The debate over Net Neutrality has kicked into high-gear after President Obama issued guidance for the FFC over how the internet should be regulated.

The President is a proponent of Net Neutrality, which suggests internet traffic should be treated equally and companies should not charge a premium based on factors such as content, location or the user in question.

Broadband and phone companies should not have the power to act as gatekeepers to websites and online services, according to the President.

"[The FFC] should make it clear that whether you use a computer, phone or tablet, internet providers have a legal obligation not to block or limit your access to a website. Cable companies can't decide which online stores you shop at or which streaming services you can use. And they can't let any company pay for priority over its competitors," he said in a video explanation.

"In plain English, I'm asking them [FCC] to recognise that for most Americans the internet has become an essential part of communication and everyday life."

What does Obama suggest?

President Obama believes the FCC should reclassify the internet from an "information service" to a "public service" to help ensure everybody a level playing field in terms of access. Such a reclassification would increase regulation of ISPs like AT&T, Comcast and Verizon, and is a move they are strictly opposed to.

The President outlined four recommendations including the need to prevent blocking, throttling and paid prioritisation. He also called for increased transparency.

Throttling has already taken place in the US, with the most high-profile case relating to Netflix. Last year, Comcast was accused of allegedly deliberately slowing down traffic from the popular video streaming site and demanding payment before increasing speeds. Netflix felt it had no choice but to stump up the cash but also had to increase its prices $1 (1 in UK) for new customers to help absorb some of the costs. It's scenarios like this which advocates of Net Neutrality are looking to prevent.

Broadband providers cry foul

Major US broadband providers have responded to the proposals laid out by the White House with distain. They claim the recommendations are outdated and overregulation would harm competition as regulators would be able to set pricing.

AT&T

"For a generation, the internet has been an American success story. Light-touch regulation has encouraged levels of investment unprecedented by any industry and spawned incredible innovation. Today's action puts all of that at risk and puts it at risk not to remedy any specific harm that has occurred." AT&AT claimed.

"If the FCC puts such rules in place, we would expect to participate in a legal challenge to such action."

Comcast

"To attempt to impose a full-blown Title II regime now, when the classification of cable broadband has always been as an information service, would reverse nearly a decade of precedent, including findings by the Supreme Court that this classification was proper," Comcast argued.

"This would be a radical reversal that would harm investment and innovation, as today's immediate stock market reaction demonstrates.

Verizon

"Reclassification under Title II, which for the first time would apply 1930s-era utility regulation to the Internet, would be a radical reversal of course that would in and of itself threaten great harm to an open Internet, competition and innovation," the firm said.

What happens next?

Tom Wheeler, chairman of the FCC, welcomed the President's input and suggested that the recommendations will be taken on board.

"We both oppose internet fast lanes. The internet must not advantage some to the detriment of others. We cannot allow broadband networks to cut special deals to prioritise Internet traffic and harm consumers, competition and innovation," he explained.

"As an independent regulatory agency we will incorporate the President's submission into the record of the Open Internet proceeding."

Having already lost two court cases to broadband providers, and with the threat of further litigation on the horizon, Wheeler added that the FCC will take its time to draft what it deems is a watertight proposal.

"The reclassification and hybrid approaches before us raise substantive legal questions. We found we would need more time to examine these to ensure that whatever approach is taken, it can withstand any legal challenges it may face," Wheeler continued.

No time frame has been given as to when the FCC will announce its latest set of proposals, but with more litigation likely, this is just the latest battle in a long war.

Some of the world's biggest online companies have voiced their concerns over the Federal Communication Commission's (FCC's) plans to enable ISPs whose customers pay the most money for their connection to speed up the internet.

Companies including Netflix, Etsy, FourSquare, KickStarter, Mozilla, Reddit, PornHub and Vimeo all put widgets on their sites showing what would happen if the FCC was able to limit the speed of some internet connections and speed up others - many would have to wait for pages to load.

Meanwhile, Twitter, Tumblr and Google all issued statements against the plans, saying allowing some companies, including cable and telecom companies in the US to provide a faster service, is unfair and companies should not be able to prioritise some connections over others.

Derek Slater, Google's policy manager told the Guardian: "The internet was designed to empower people. To get online, you need to use an internet access provider. But once you're online, you decide what to do and where to go. Anyone, anywhere can share their opinions freely and any entrepreneur, big or small, can build, launch and innovate without having to get permission first."

However, supporters of the FCC's plans say that ISPs won't be able to decrease quality, but will be allowed to experiment with new business models and tiers of service - ie. allowing those who use a lot of bandwidth and pay more money for their service to access the web faster than those who are using lower-tier services.

The FCC said it has been forced to take this action because technology has evolved so fast that many people are accessing the internet using mobile devices, which does not give them the best experience.

The US Federal Communications Commission (FCC) is to look into why Netflix customers are not always able to watch streamed content without interruption.

In a statement on Friday, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler said the organisation would collect information on how traffic from the streaming service was handled by ISP Verizon during negotiations between the two firms.

"To be clear, what we are doing right now is collecting information, not regulating," Wheeler said. "We are looking under the hood. Consumers want transparency. They want answers. And so do I."

He added the FCC has received copies of agreements Netflix made with Verizon and fellow ISP Comcast. These agreements have put a strain on relationships between Netflix and the ISPs, it is claimed.

Following a deal with Comcast in February to ensure there was enough bandwidth for Netflix customers, its chief executive Reed Hastings said ISPs were "extracting a toll because they can."

Netflix made a deal with Verizon, and even notified subscribers if it thought the ISP was to blame for poor download speeds. These messages were removed after Verizon threatened legal action.

In response, Verizon and Comcast alleged Hastings was misleading consumers and trying to pass the cost of Netflix's video traffic demands onto all of their customers, even non-Netflix subscribers.

Wheeler said the situation merited scrutiny. "Consumers pay their ISP and pay content providers like Hulu, Netflix and Amazon," Wheeler said.

"Then when they don't get good service they wonder what is going on. I have experienced these problems myself and know how exasperating it can be."

In a statement, Comcast welcomed the move by the FCC.

"We welcome the Chairman's attention to these important issues in the internet ecosystem. Internet traffic exchange on the backbone is part of ensuring that bits flow freely and efficiently and all actors across the system have a shared responsibility to preserve the smooth functioning and highly competitive backbone interconnection market," Sena Fizmaurice, Comcast's vice president of government communications, said in a statement.

"We welcome this review which will allow the Commission full transparency into the entire Internet backbone ecosystem and enable full education as to how this market works."

Netflix also welcomed the move. "Americans deserve to get the speed and quality of internet access they pay for," a spokesman said.

Mobile networks are cracking under the strain of increasing volumes of rich data.

To tackle this issue, executives from Tata Communications believe there needs to be some level of content prioritisation, enabling paying users or content providers to stream without delays, whilst still allowing standard mobile services to function.

During a keynote speech at the company's Analyst and Media Summit in Dubai, Allan Chan, executive vice president of mobility services for Tata, said: "Operators are currently doing fairly crude things to cover the strain, such as capping high data users [and] throttling."

"Those [methods] won't match what a consumer wants so they are on a collision course."

He claimed networks needed to move to "service-based broadband," which would enable either content providers to charge for spotless streaming of videos or users to download high quality gaming, at an extra price.

Of course, this raises the issue of net neutrality. Over the past two years, the debate has been raging as to whether ISPs could prioritise different fixed broadband traffic to ensure high performance for rich websites.

However, there was a rebellion, with even the likes of the BBC saying it was unfair to outfits unable to pay p the prices the providers were likely to charge for preferential treatment.

When the issue was raised with Chan though, he answered by saying: "There isn't net neutrality on mobile networks yet."

John Landau, senior vice president of technology and services evolution at Tata, backed up his colleague. "Net neutrality was a fixed [broadband] concept and for mobile networks it is fair usage," he said.

"Your mobile provider doesn't want you to turn off, but from a fair usage perspective they are going to want to manage the media streams to give you a better experience. The network guys will never have enough bandwidth, with spectrum issues and everything else."

He added: "You want to keep the customer but you may have to adapt for certain services, such as companies wanting to deploy desktop on smartphone, a premium game or another media stream."

Landau claimed fair usage "gives a better deal to the consumer than net neutrality" but said regulation needed to ensure providers didn't have too much control. "Net neutrality is a great concept to ensure you don't end up with a walled garden, keeping people out," he added. "Most providers understand that... but you don't want to keep that [forsaking] customer experience."

Both executives concluded fair usage was necessary for mobile networks to handle the continual growth of data, whilst still giving the customer a network which performs.

You can read more news from the Tata Communications Summit on our sister title Cloud Pro.

The European Parliament has voted in favour of keeping the internet "open and neutral" as it looks to ensure telecoms firms don't throttle citizens' connections.

A resolution agreed on by MEPs stressed the need to scrutinise telecoms providers' traffic management practices so certain users are not given preferential treatment, meaning others miss out.

It also asked the European Commission to issue guidelines to guarantee rules on net neutrality are properly applied.

It is clearly understood that traffic management practices must not be used for anti-competitive purposes.

Parliament called for assurance that "internet service providers do not block, discriminate against or impair the ability of any person to use or offer any service, content or application of their choice irrespective of source or target."

"Reasonable data traffic management is required and very useful to prevent network congestion and the smooth running of applications and services. Nonetheless, it is clearly understood that traffic management practices must not be used for anti-competitive purposes," said Industry, Research and Energy Committee chair Herbert Reul.

MEPs expect to enshrine the conclusions around net neutrality in law on 13 December.

The European Parliament's work has been applauded by a number of onlookers.

"Neelie Kroes and the European Commission have taken a balanced approach to net neutrality and rightly so," said Dominique Lazanski, head of digital policy at the Tax Payers' Alliance.

"We enjoy competition in internet service providers, mobile access and content in Europe unrivalled anywhere else in the world. There has been no issue or event to even consider bringing net neutrality in Europe."

Lazanski said it would be unwise for the EU to enforce additional legislation to keep the net neutral.

"We feel that any further step in legislating for net neutrality is not necessary due to the fact that the Telecoms Package is more than sufficient to deal with issues of competition and poor consumer services," she added.

"The need to grow the European economy is essential in these difficult economic times. Unnecessary regulation on an already competitive internet service market will impede Internet access, take away from internet infrastructure development and impact economic growth throughout Europe."

BT was recently accused in a New York Times article of throttling three quarters of its broadband connections in the UK.

BT dismissed the report as outdated, telling our sister publication PC Pro that some companies in it were not in existence anymore.

However, the Max Planck Institute, which provided the data for the New York Times, said the information was current.

Twitter may be one of the fastest growing social networks on the internet, but it seems one of the fathers of web technology isn't a fan.

Sir Tim Berners-Lee, inventor of the World Wide Web and regular tech commentator, has slammed the service at a conference in London, claiming it was "not a place for reasoned discussion."

The director of the World Wide Web Consortium (W3C) was speaking at the "New Web" conference at The Royal Society, expressing his views that all social networks should communicate with one another to open up debates to more voices.

However, when tweeters were discussing net neutrality an issue close to his heart Berners-Lee claimed "all the tweets were extreme."

"Is Twitter going to be a part of [the future web]? We need something a bit more sophisticated," he added.

"Twitter is not really designed for middle of the way discussion. Something should be."

Berners-Lee recently fought the case for net neutrality at a Government roundtable, telling communications minister Ed Vaizey the internet should not have priority traffic but neutral access for all.

It's been a rather somber and sobering week in the IT PRO office as we've watched the natural disasters afflicting Japan become even more serious than we could ever have imagined, while Libya undergoes a very different type of catastrophe that's still nonetheless heart wrenching.

If you haven't already done so, we'd encourage you to make a charitable donation to the ongoing relief efforts in Japan.

Despite all the drama in the real world, there have still been a few japes and guffaws in the surreal and unreal world of IT to bring a smile to our faces.

The Neutral Zone

Net neutrality may be a political hot potato for our colonial cousins on the other side of the pond, but it's been an underreported and underappreciated issue over here, especially in the Westminster Village.

That may change though as Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, has spoken out against the idea that ISPs should be able to charge customers more for access to some sites rather than others.

The effect of such a provision could be chilling for aspiring British internet entrepreneurs, customer choice and free speech. That naturally means that IT PRO's favourite Tory boy, Communications Minister Ed Vaizey, has voiced his support for such an inequitable idea. We reckon Berners-Lee and Vaizey should settle the matter using fisticuffs. Geek vs lawyer-turned-politician! Our quatloos (that means money in Star Trek tongue) are on the Geek.

I'm having a broadband sleepover and you're not invited!

In spite all the fuss about net neutrality Virgin Media is pushing ahead with plans to roll out stonkingly fast 100Mbit/s broadband throughout the UK.

This would be good news except we've heard reports of 100Mbps customers supplied by various ISPs being subject to indignities such as less-than-stellar customer service and download restrictions and traffic management rules. Party poopers.

I still prefer Mosaic or Netscape Navigator to be honest

Microsoft has released Internet Explorer 9, the latest version of its imaginatively-named web browser.

Although it's the best version yet, it's kind of hard to take it seriously since it's not compatible with Windows XP and it seems like a mash-up of Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox, but not really different enough from either of them.

Personally, I can't use any browser unless it has an 8-bit mode that makes websites look like Teletext pages.

Web creator Sir Tim Berners-Lee argued the case for net neutrality during a Government-held roundtable yesterday.

Communications minister Ed Vaizey brought together industry and consumer groups, including the BBC and Facebook, to discuss the issue of an open internet.

"While transparency about traffic management policy is a good thing, best practices should also include the neutrality of the net," Berners-Lee said.

"The web has grown so fast precisely because we have had two independent markets, one for connectivity, and the other for content and applications."

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, and another attendee at the meeting, claimed internet service providers (ISPs) were "not putting forward anything that looks like meaningful self-regulation."

"In contrast with the US, where rules are being put in place through the FCC (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," Killock said.

"If that continues to be the case, then Ed Vaizey will find himself with the task of breaking the log jam."

Another attendee was Dominique Lazanski, from campaign group the Big Brother Watch, who told IT PRO little was achieved at the meeting.

"There is nothing new on the net neutrality front - or rather nothing earth shattering," Lazanski said.

"Basically, Ed Vaizey and Ofcom are going to take a cautious approach on it and see how the voluntary code of practice goes."

The issue could escalate when, on 25 May, the EU Directive is set to make transparency on traffic management an obligation.

Ofcom is also due to release guidance on how it will look out for transparency breaches, among other open internet issues, Lazanski noted.

Despite the apparent stalemate at the meeting, which also featured the likes of Yahoo, Skype and Ofcom, Vaizey described the roundtable as "productive."

Vaizey previously voiced a preference for a two-tier internet, saying ISPs should be allowed to manage their networks and charge content providers and users for faster access.

Yesterday, he praised the move by a number of ISPs to be more transparent with their traffic management.

Earlier this week, BT, Virgin Media and Sky were amongst a host of companies who signed up to a new code of practice, drafted by the Broadband Stakeholders Group (BSG), to reveal how they restrict broadband speeds.

"It is good to see that industry has taken the lead on agreeing greater transparency for their traffic management policies," Vaizey said.

"I am pleased that someone with the expertise of Sir Tim has agreed to work with industry on expanding that agreement to cover managing and maintaining the open internet."

The communications minister said the agreement should ensure users could access all legal content, whilst no discrimination against content providers on the basis of commercial rivalry should exist.

Furthermore, traffic management policies should be clear and transparent, Vaizey added.

Following the meeting, BSG chief executive (CEO) Antony Walker said any decision on net neutrality should be "based on the realities of what is happening in the UK market, rather than what is happening elsewhere in the world."

"The challenge ahead is to build a common view on how we safeguard the benefits of the open internet whilst also ensuring ongoing investment and innovation," he added.

A number of high profile internet service providers (ISPs) have agreed to reveal how they restrict broadband speeds through traffic management.

BT, Virgin Media and Sky are amongst the companies who have signed up to a new code of practice, drafted by the Broadband Stakeholders Group, in the hope it will show its users why restrictions need to be placed on speeds to ensure their networks remain in good health.

The ISP argument is the slowing of connections during busy periods allows them to maintain a strong network, with the breaks being put on less time critical activities.

However, there are concerns this practice will lead to a two-tiered internet, where ISPs will charge for websites to be prioritised something critics, such as the BBC, are strongly opposed to.

But Antony Walker, chief executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, thinks the new code is key, as whatever policy is made around traffic management in the future, it is important for the numbers to be transparent.

"There has been more heat than light in the debate about traffic management over recent years," he said. "This commitment to provide clear and comparable information in a common format is very important."

Walker added: "It will not only help to ensure consumers are better informed about the services they buy and use, but will also provide a clearer picture for policy makers of the way in which traffic management is actually used in the UK market."

Other companies backing the code include O2, TalkTalk, Three and Vodafone. All the signatories together account for 90 per cent of fixed line customers and 60 per cent of mobile customers across the UK.

The initial code will be piloted throughout 2011, with a review set for early 2012 to "fine tune" the practice. At this point, consumer groups and other interested bodies will also be invited to put their thoughts across on how the code should be formalised.

"Consumers need to be able to make informed choices about the services they buy and policy makers need to be able to make informed decisions about the policy and regulatory framework they set," Walker added.

"This new commitment provides an essential building block for getting both of these things right."

A new service from BT has received a barrage of criticism and has led to the company being accused of threatening net neutrality.

Content Connect enables the internet service provider (ISP) to charge those producing content online for higher quality access to their websites. Many believe this process could lead to a "two-tier internet" as content will be prioritised by its pricetag rather than substance.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said: "We are talking about ISPs competing with the internet for content delivery the idea is that ISPs will deliver this stuff better and more reliably than the internet."

"The result could be a fundamental shift away from buying services from the internet to bundled services from ISPs, which would reduce competition and take investment away from internet companies. That would be bad for everyone."

However, BT has claimed the service would actually improve internet delivery for everyone by freeing up an otherwise clogged network.

A statement sent to IT PRO from BT said: "BT believes that service providers should be free to strike commercial deals should content owners want a higher quality or assured service delivery."

"BT's Content Connect service will not create a two tier internet, but will simply offer service providers the option of differentiating their broadband offering through enhanced content delivery."

The statement added: "To improve the quality of video content consumed by customers, service providers can either opt for BT's new content distribution network, or can choose to improve the quality of the viewing experience by offering faster download speeds."

"Because Content Connect stores content closer to the end customers, it is likely to improve the overall broadband experience for all customers."

This argument has failed to convince the service's critics though and Labour MP Tom Watson told IT PRO he would address the issue in the House of Commons.

"This is a worrying development," he said. "Turning a broadband connection into the internet equivalent of Sky TV is not good for small businesses or consumers. I will be raising this in Parliament at the earliest opportunity."

Controversy around net neutrality kicked off again back in November when Ed Vaizey, Conservative MP and communications minister, backed the idea of charging for superior delivery of websites if content providers coughed up the fee.

His comments were seized on by a number of opponents but one of the biggest came in the form of the BBC, which said it would warn users if any ISPs downgraded the quality of access to its websites and the iPlayer.

A number of prominent organisations have today written an open letter to communications minister Ed Vaizey, asking him to stick by his pledge of an open internet.

The letter, which included the signatures of Stefan Krawczyk, a senior director at eBay, Emma Ascroft, director of public and social policy at Yahoo, and Jean-Jacques Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs at Skype, thanked the minister for the commitments he had made but advised on what needed to be done by the Government to make sure the plans came to fruition.

"This is the first time that such a clear political commitment has been made in the UK to preserve the end-to-end principle that underpins the internet, and the benefits it brings to citizens, consumers, businesses and economic growth," said the letter.

"In order to safeguard these benefits for all stakeholders in the future, five key principles are important complements to this political commitment."

After the first point, which stated matter of fact that the internet needed to be open, the letter addressed the controversial issue of a two-tier internet, which Vaizey appeared to back earlier this month.

Unsurprisingly, those who signed the letter including executive director of the Open Rights Group, Jim Killock were against ISPs being able to charge content providers for fastest access to their websites.

"Traffic management should be kept to a minimum, and deployed for purely technical, security or legal reasons," read the letter. "There should be no discrimination in the treatment of internet traffic, based on device, or the origin and/or destination of the content, service or application."

The third principle added to this point by saying any information about traffic management should be made available to all who rely on broadband.

Finally, the letter called for any investment into future network capacity not to compromise the openness of the internet and for regulatory frameworks to stop network providers abusing the system needed to be put in place.

"End-users' choice of which applications, content, and services to view, use or run is already restricted in the UK today, especially when accessing the internet on mobile," it said.

"The Government's commitment to the open internet must be reflected in action on the ground to remove any such arbitrary restrictions to the open internet."

The letter concluded by calling for the Government to implement new EU legislation for electronic communications, to ensure Ofcom closely monitored the market and to push for ISPs to introduce "meaningful self regulation" in regards to traffic management.

We contacted Vaizey's department the department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS) for an answer to the letter but it had not responded to our request at the time of publication.

Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee has outlined a number of threats facing the future of the online world, with both Apple and Facebook objects of his concern.

Berners-Lee warned social networks "are walling off information posted by their users," as the likes of Facebook and LinkedIn keep user data to themselves without sharing it.

"The sites assemble these bits of data into brilliant databases and reuse the information to provide value-added service - but only within their sites," he explained in Scientific American.

"Once you enter your data into one of these services, you cannot easily use them on another site. Each site is a silo, walled off from the others."

He explained this "isolation" was a result of each piece of information lacking a URI Berners-Lee's terms for URLs.

"Connections among data exist only within a site. So the more you enter, the more you become locked in. Your social-networking site becomes a central platform - a closed silo of content, and one that does not give you full control over your information in it," he continued.

"A related danger is that one social-networking site - or one search engine or one browser - gets so big that it becomes a monopoly, which tends to limit innovation," he added, most likely referring to Facebook - by far the most dominant social network with over 500 million users.

Earlier this month, Google refused to allow Facebook to access Gmail data if the social networking firm did not open up its user data as well. Facebook has not complied thus far and subsequently offered a workaround to users for accessing their Gmail information over Zuckerberg's service.

Berners-Lee also turned his attention to open standards, suggesting companies which do not adhere to them will create "closed worlds." In this case, he cited Apple iTunes.

"Apple's iTunes system, for example, identifies songs and videos using URIs that are open. But instead of 'http:' the addresses begin with 'itunes:,' which is proprietary," he added.

"You can access an 'itunes:' link only using Apple's proprietary iTunes program. You can't make a link to any information in the iTunes world - a song or information about a band. You can't send that link to someone else to see. You are no longer on the web."

He claimed the iTunes world was "centralised and walled off," with no allowance to move across to other stores or participate in an "open marketplace."

"For all the store's wonderful features, its evolution is limited to what one company thinks up," Berners-Lee added.

Apple has been criticised in this respect before, notably by Adobe, which claimed earlier this year the Cupertino company wanted a "walled garden" around the web.

Berners-Lee also addressed the increasingly pertinent issue of net neutrality, emphasising the need for equality across the web.

"A neutral communications medium is the basis of a fair, competitive market economy, of democracy, and of science," he added.

"Debate has risen again in the past year about whether government legislation is needed to protect net neutrality. It is."

In the UK, the neutrality issue exploded into life last week when communications minister Ed Vaizey delivered a speech indicating the government could allow ISPs to charge for speedier delivery of sites.

He then sought to clarify his comments following the speech, telling the Daily Telegraph: "People are already entitled to choose the speed of their connection, but we're not saying one ISP should be able to prioritise one provider's content over another and I don't support the commercial decision to downgrade a rival's site."

Ed Vaizey has claimed he is just as positive about an open internet as Tim Berners-Lee and has used Twitter to vent his frustrations.

Vaizey let loose on the social networking site this weekend at one of his biggest critics, Labour MP Tom Watson, claiming those who said the communications minister was against net neutrality had not paid attention to what he said in a speech last week.

However, a statement from the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills (BIS), released to bring attention to the minister's speech, said the controversial plans allowing internet service providers (ISPs) to charge websites for users to get speedier access was an option.

Replying to Watson, Vaizey wrote: "Hey open interneters Ed Vaizey said exactly what he said in his original speech but none of you could be bothered to read it."

Watson was quick to reply, saying: "There you go, more spin ;-) Glad the open Internet is safe in your hands comrade."

He later added: "I read all your speeches. Line by line."

Vaizey has done a number of interviews with national newspapers over the weekend to stem the accusations he was against an open internet.

"My first and overriding priority is an open internet where consumers have access to all legal content," he told the Daily Telegraph. "Should the internet develop in a way that was detrimental to consumer interests we would seek to intervene."

"People are already entitled to choose the speed of their connection, but we're not saying one ISP should be able to prioritise one provider's content over another and I don't support the commercial decision to downgrade a rival's site."

Vaizey also told The Guardian: "I say 'don't block input' [to the internet]. It's my first principle. I say the same as Berners-Lee."

Berners-Lee replied in the newspaper, saying: "There's no passage in [Vaizey's] speech where he says he's against net neutrality. We have discussed it on the phone. But I can't say yet that we're entirely in line."

The statement from BIS said the Government would "take into account support for innovation and investment ISPs should be able to manage their networks to ensure a good service and have flexibility in business models. Competition is important for ensuring continued openness and choice."

One of the highest profile critics to the suggestion last week was the BBC, which said it would implement a traffic light system showing if connections were being adjusted to any of its websites, if necessary.

However, the "two-tier" internet idea has gained support from both telecoms regulator Ofcom and the European Commission.

The BBC has warned internet service providers (ISPs) it will advise its users if access to its websites has been slowed down.

A two-tier internet system, where ISPs would be able to sell faster access to content providers or users, has gained support from regulator Ofcom and the European Commission.

However, Eric Huggers, director of future media and technology at the BBC, has shown the organisation was less keen and said it would offer a traffic light system to show what class of connection users were getting when accessing the likes of the BBC iPlayer.

The Financial Times reported Huggers saying the BBC would be "highly unlikely" to pay the premium for top quality access, during the newspaper's telecoms conference this week.

But the traffic light system has been seen as more of a threat than a promise, with Huggers adding the organisation would only implement it if it felt it was necessary for "consumers to see that their ISP [was] behaving appropriately."

The news follows the controversial two-tier system getting the backing of communications minister Ed Vaizey.

The Conservative MP said ISPs should be free to control their networks as they saw fit and only "light regulation" from the Government should be implemented to keep the internet "open and transparent."

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group (ORG), reacted negatively to Vaizey's support.

"Removing 'net neutrality' is likely to reduce innovation and reduce people's ability to exercise their freedom of speech," he said, concluding ORG would campaign against ISPs restricting customer's access for "market advantage."

The Government "should do all they can" to avoid regulation of the internet, according to one of its senior ministers, but still allow ISPs to charge for speedier delivery of sites.

Ed Vaizey, Conservative MP and communications minister, claimed the Coalition should help the internet remain open and transparent and all legal content should be viewable by the general public.

However, he still believed ISPs should be allowed to manage their networks and charge content providers and users for faster access.

In a speech at the FT World Telecoms Conference, Vaizey said the current internet model had allowed for an "unprecedented level of innovation," allowing for huge companies to emerge and make millions of dollars.

"This is a model that the British government wishes to protect," he added. "A lightly regulated internet is good for business, good for the economy, and good for people."

However, campaigners for "net neutrality" have hit back at the suggestion, backed by telecoms regulator Ofcom and the European Commission.

"Removing 'net neutrality' is likely to reduce innovation and reduce people's ability to exercise their freedom of speech," said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group (ORG).

"ORG will campaign against any market abuse, if companies like BT, Sky and Virgin restrict customer's internet access for market advantage."

However, Vaizey concluded: "The government is no fan of regulation and we should only intervene when it is clearly necessary to deliver important benefits for consumers."

Ofcom, the communications industry regulator, is set to investigate internet services' traffic management policies.

The move comes amid growing concerns that some internet service providers (ISPs) are using traffic management policies as a cloak for anti-competitive practices.

Traffic management is meant to allow networks to improve services and handle traffic more efficiently, by assigning different priorities to different types of data. However, Ofcom believes that some ISPs might be abusing the system, in order to block or degrade internet traffic from rival services.

The regulator has launched a consultation, to discuss how it might use its powers to police ISPs' traffic management policies, and ensure that they are not anti-competitive. Ofcom also wants to gauge public awareness of ISPs' traffic management rules, to understand whether these are sufficiently transparent.

According to Ofcom, EU rules mean that it has a duty to "address the emerging issues around traffic management," said Ed Richards, its chief executive. "At the heart of this discussion is how to ensure that traffic management practices are transparent and how to ensure that traffic management is not used for anti-competitive discrimination."

The idea of discriminating either in favour, or against, certain types of internet traffic goes against the idea of net neutrality. Net neutrality is based on the belief that all types of traffic should have a level playing field on the net.

The growth of both legitimate high-bandwidth services, such as YouTube or the BBC's iPlayer, and illegal file-sharing and torrent sites, has caused problems for ISPs.

Service providers are worried that a small number of subscribers, as well as a small number of online services, are using a disproportionate amount of bandwidth. This, in turn, is affecting the online experience of average users.

Content providers and companies offering services over internet, for their part, worry that some ISPs might use traffic shaping and traffic management to discriminate in favour of their own tied or "walled garden" services, and against independent services or those from rival ISPs.

"Net neutrality is a complex issue with different concepts used in different countries," said a spokesman for BT.

"BT's view is that internet-based content should be carried like all other internet traffic. But service providers should also be free to strike commercial deals should content owners want a higher quality of service delivery."

"Traffic management is a necessary evil given the price competiveness in the market, with too many ISPs promising too much for too little," said Peter Gradwell, founder of business ISP Gradwell.com. "But from a VoIP provider perspective it's very important that providers are not anti-competitive and don't block traffic. I'd welcome Ofcom's consultation on this as it would be good to clear the air."

Ofcom's announcement comes in the week that the US Federal Communications Commission started its hearings on net neutrality.

Ofcom's initial discussion paper can be found here and the consultation runs until 9 September.

Industry heavyweights including Amazon, eBay, Facebook, Google, Sony and Twitter have joined forces to pledge their support for the Federal Communications Commission's (FCC) stance on net neutrality.

In a letter sent to the FCC, signed off by the big names, the collective expresses how important it is to them, the economy and innovation that the web stay as open as it has done historically.

This view is at odds with how some ISPs want the internet to be regulated going forward.

"An open internet fuels a competitive and efficient marketplace, where consumers make the ultimate choices about which products succeed and which fail. This allows businesses of all sizes, from the smallest startup to larger corporations, to compete, yielding maximum economic growth and opportunity," stated the letter. The letter continued: "America's leadership in the technology space has been due, in large part, to the open internet. We applaud your leadership in initiating a process to develop rules to ensure that the qualities that have made the internet so successful are protected."

Other signatories voicing their support were Cbeyond, Craigslist, Digg, EchoStar Corporation, Expedia, Flickr, IAC, Linkedin, Meetup, Mozilla, OpenDNS, Skype, Tivo, Vuze, XO Communications, YouTube and Zynga.

Google said it is committed to the principles of equal network access, after a report said it approached internet carriers with a proposal to create a "fast lane" for its content.

Richard Whitt, Google's telecom and media counsel in Washington, said in a company blog that the search powerhouse offered to place its servers within the facilities of internet service providers, making its data closer to consumers and therefore more easily accessed.

The Wall Street Journal said that the proposal would put at risk Google's stance on network neutrality, in which cable and phone companies that operate the data pipelines should treat all traffic the same.

Whitt said Google has always said providers should be able to engage in activities that bolster access speeds through co-location and caching, both techniques that ease data traffic, as long as they do so without discrimination.

"However, they shouldn't be able to leverage their unilateral control over consumers' broadband connections to hamper user choice, competition, and innovation," he said.

"Our commitment to that principle of net neutrality remains as strong as ever."

Josh Silver, executive director of advocacy group Free Press, said that any company planning to "secretly violate" the principle of network neutrality would face strong opposition from the internet community.

"We are skeptical that Google is truly engaged in a nefarious plot to undermine the open internet - the company denies it, and we look forward to all of the facts coming to light," Silver said in a statement.

The Journal report had said one major cable operator in talks with Google said it has been reluctant to forge a deal because of concerns it might violate Federal Communications Commission guidelines on network neutrality.

ISP's in the US are set to have a fight on their hands as a senator tries to push through so called, 'net neutrality' legislation.

Senator Byron Dorgan, a North Dakota Democrat, wants to prevent ISP's from blocking and traffic shaping internet content, claiming that current internet regulation is not sufficient, one of his aids said on Thursday.

"We feel that legislation is definitely necessary," said Frannie Wellings, telecom counsel to Dorgan, speaking at a University of Nebraska law school event on changes in telecom law after the election of Democrat Barack Obama.

Dorgan has been influential on the issue, and will be among the highest ranking Democrats on the Senate's Commerce Committee when it reconvenes in January.

The net neutrality fight pits internet service providers (ISPs), such as AT&T against content companies like Google and Microsoft.

The larger ISPs say they need to manage the ever-growing traffic on their networks without government interference.

Content companies say the ISPs hold too power much to block or slow down traffic requiring more bandwidth, such as movie downloads, or certain content altogether.

President-elect Barack Obama supports net neutrality legislation. The election of Obama and more Democrats who back the concept adds momentum to the cause, Wellings said.

A recent Federal Communications Commission (FCC) decision ordering Comcast to stop impeding the sharing of certain content between users proves regulators already have the authority, an AT&T official said.

"The current principles already deal with unreasonable discrimination," said Jim Cicconi, AT&T executive vice president for regulatory affairs, pointing to the Comcast case.

The public would not pay for its internet services if AT&T discriminated against content, he added. "We'd be shooting ourselves in the foot."

Comcast is suing the FCC over the issue, and much depends on the outcome of that case, experts said. If the court sides with Comcast, legislation will become much more likely.

"The telephone and cable companies say trust them," said Markham Erickson, director of the Open Internet Coalition, a trade group that lobbies for net neutrality, with members such as Google and eBay. "We will trust but verify, " he added.

Net neutrality received a major endorsement this week after a leading US politician introduced a bill in support of an internet free of restrictions.

US House Judiciary Committee chairman John Conyers, a Democrat from Michigan, said the bill he and California Democratic representative Zoe Lofgren had introduced would require US broadband providers to operate their networks "in a reasonable and non-discriminatory manner so that all content, applications and services are treated the same and have an equal opportunity to reach consumers."

"If we allow companies with monopoly or duopoly power to control how the internet operates, network providers could have the power to choose what content is available," Conyers said in a statement.

US telco Verizon responded in a statement, saying such a bill would be "tough sell" in Congress.

"Broadband deployment is a bright spot in the U.S. economy that provides high paying jobs, unprecedented infrastructure investment, and innovation. Why would Congress want to jeopardize all that with this bill?" Verizon spokesman David Fish said.

At issue is the so-called "network neutrality" controversy that pits open-Internet advocates against some service providers, who say they need to take reasonable steps to manage ever-growing traffic on their networks.

The net neutrality issue has been spotlighted by a series of incidents in which US-based network operators, such as Comcast and Verizon Wireless, the latter part owned by UK mobile phone operator Vodafone, were accused of hindering certain online data moving over their networks, such as file-sharing or text-messaging.