Download to read offline
![European Parliament net
neutrality law workshop 4/6/13
―[Marsden] suggested a fatal flaw in ISP
arguments to bypass net neutrality
they say they need to place limitations on
connectivity
in order to deal with the ―data explosion‖,
but there is in reality no such thing.
―Marsden noted that figures from Cisco itself
◦ remember, a company trying to sell carriers kit to
cope with this supposed explosion –
indicated a manageable increase in the
amount of data people are using](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/marsdenregulatingcodemit-130624055707-phpapp01/75/Marsden-Regulatingcode-MIT-10-2048.jpg)
![Meyer [Gigaom] concludes
―Whether or not you agree with
Marsden‘s interpretation of Cisco‘s figures,
his point highlights an inherent logical
contradiction in the carriers‘ stance:
―if the ―data explosion‖ is so severe as to necessitate
the creation of fast lanes with guaranteed QoS,
―doesn‘t that mean the ―best efforts‖ slow lanes will
necessarily be slower than the equal-access lane we
have today?
―And if that‘s not the case, then why create divided
classes of internet access?
They can‘t have it both ways.‖
Really?](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/marsdenregulatingcodemit-130624055707-phpapp01/75/Marsden-Regulatingcode-MIT-20-2048.jpg)
![4 lines of complaint
Search bias: Google favours own products over competitors in results
Vertical Search Opt-Out –
◦ Google don‘t let websites opt out of particular uses of pages it indexes.
◦ complete opt-out giving up all Google traffic, a significant driver of traffic –
◦ especially Europe: Google has 90% search market in UK, Nl, France, Germany
Restricted 3rd party use of AdWords:
◦ ―API Client may not [function] copies data between Google and 3rd Party.‖
◦ Companies can advertise on Google and Bing,
◦ but cannot use a program to copy Google AdWords campaigns over to Bing.
◦ dropped by Google as token interoperability sop to FTC‘s investigation;
Injunctions against standards-essential patents,
◦ including those by Google-acquired Motorola Mobility
see Posner‘s now–famous judgment in June 2012
◦ FTC concluded (4-1) unfair competition, Google agreed not to engage in it
◦ fires a shot not just at Google, but also at rivals –clever concession by Google!](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/marsdenregulatingcodemit-130624055707-phpapp01/75/Marsden-Regulatingcode-MIT-34-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byChris Marsden
Marsden #Regulatingcode MIT
This document summarizes key points from a discussion on regulating the internet. It discusses arguments for net neutrality and challenges to claims of a "data explosion" necessitating tiered internet access. It also analyzes cases involving Google, including its settlements with regulators, and argues for a "prosumer law" approach focused on search neutrality, interoperability and truthful advertising rather than large fines. Overall it advocates for evidence-based internet policymaking that considers complex realities rather than ideological positions.
More Related Content
Similar to Marsden #Regulatingcode MIT
More from Chris Marsden
Marsden #Regulatingcode MIT
- 1. Regulating Code Good Governanceand Better Regulation in the Information Age (MIT Press) Ian Brown (Oxford) Chris Marsden (Sussex) @IanBrownOII @ChrisTMarsden #RegulatingCode
- 2. John Perry Barlow ADeclaration of the Independence of Cyberspace (1996) response to CDA 1996 (partly struck down in Reno v. ACLU 1997) ‘Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of the Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.’
- 3. Regulation and governance Internet use now ubiquitous ◦ but governments, legislators and regulatory agencies falling further behind rapidly changing Internet technologies and uses Critical analysis of regulatory shaping of ―code‖ or technological environment ◦ ‗Code is law‘ and coders operate within normative framework ◦ More economically efficient and socially just regulation ◦ Critical socio-technical and socio-legal approach
- 4. Test the existing‗received truths‘ 1. Self-regulation and minimal state involvement is most efficient in dynamic innovative industries; ◦ technology is never neutral in societal impact ◦ network and scale effects drive massive concentration 2. Self-regulation critically lacks constitutional checks and balances for the private citizen, including appeal 3. Multi-stakeholder co-regulation chance to reconcile the market failures and constitutional legitimacy failures in self-regulation ◦ voters will not allow governments to ignore the Internet.
- 5. Empirical investigation Fivecase studies and one ‗prior art‘ (encryption, anonymity, security) ◦ Multi-year empirical investigation ◦ Builds on various EC/other studies including ‗Self-regulation.info‘ (2001-4), ‗Co-regulation‘ (2006-8), ‗Towards a Future Internet‘ (2008-10), ‗Privacy Value Networks‘ (2008-11), ‗Network neutrality‘ (2007-10) ‗Internet science‘ (2012-15) Reassesses prior art in view of ‗hard cases‘ ◦ Topics with no organised regulation/self-regulation ◦ Due to lack of consensus over solutions ◦ Clash between market outcomes and human rights
- 6. Five case studychapters 1. Data protection ◦ Enforcement failures, Privacy by Design 2. Copyright ◦ Capture of law by lobbyists, code solutions outflank 3. Filtering ◦ Growth of censorship, surprising degree of freedom – disappearing? 4. Social Networks ◦ Dominance, network effects, corporate social irresponsibility 5. Smart Pipes ◦ Net neutrality argument, DPI deployment
- 7. Prosumers not super-users Web 2.0 and related tools make for active users, not passive consumers US administrative & academic arguments ◦ self-regulation may work for geeks, ◦ but what about the other 99%? European regulatory space ◦ more fertile ground to explore prosumerism ◦ as both a market-based and ◦ citizen-oriented regulatory tool
- 8. Commissioner Kroes toenact EU net neutrality law 4 June‘13 ―The fact is, the online data explosion means networks are getting congested. ―ISPs need to invest in network capacity to meet rising demand. ―But, at peak times, traffic management will continue to play a role: ◦ it can be for legitimate and objective reasons; like separating time-critical traffic from the less urgent.
- 9. Kroes: ―different usershave different network needs‖ ―Some people want a straightforward mobile package to check the odd email or website. ―Others want to constantly watch videos on their tablet, consuming high bandwidth. ―I want to put those consumer needs right at the centre of our thinking. ―Operators need to respect different needs, ―and to do that they must also be allowed to innovate to meet those needs.‖ By ‗innovate‘, she means charge for limited access to a walled garden or a low data cap
- 10. European Parliament net neutralitylaw workshop 4/6/13 ―[Marsden] suggested a fatal flaw in ISP arguments to bypass net neutrality they say they need to place limitations on connectivity in order to deal with the ―data explosion‖, but there is in reality no such thing. ―Marsden noted that figures from Cisco itself ◦ remember, a company trying to sell carriers kit to cope with this supposed explosion – indicated a manageable increase in the amount of data people are using
- 11. Fact Check: CiscoVNI 2013 Western European data growth 2012-17 Fixed 17% CAGR ◦ Down from historic growth of 30-40% ◦ Not exactly Bernie‘s 100% every 100 days, is it? Mobile 50% CAGR ◦ Mobile 0.15% of all Internet traffic 2012 (885PB) ◦ Latter figure much reduced from earlier estimates ◦ Due to WiFi hand-off ◦ BBC has shown that over 90% of smartphone/tablet video streams are Wifi ◦ Mobiles not overloaded http://chrismarsden.blogspot.com/2013/05/wireless-handoff- thats-why-mobile-data.html?spref=tw
- 12. Marsden conclusion ―Thereis no data explosion on the European internet, so we shouldn‘t be trying to make policy based on a fallacious assumption,‖ he said. ―If we keep talking about data explosions, the thing that‘s going to explode is the heads of the technical people who know there is no data explosion.‖ Correct? Evidence base incomplete http://fastnetnews.com/a-wireless-cloud/61-w/4892- cisco-mobile-growth-going-down-down-down
- 14. US Evidence-Based Policy? ―America‘s broadband systems have doubled in speed, while Europe‘s have remained stagnant.‖ Which Europe is this? European 300% speed growth 2008-13 In a long economic depression
- 15. NY Times: 16June 2013! ―No country for slow broadband‖ http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/16/opinion/sunday/no-country-for-slow- broadband.html?_r=1&
- 16.
- 17. But broke UKkeeps growing faster and cheaper
- 18. Sam Knows? Consumerspeed tests UK – Ofcom since 2009 US – FCC since April 2010 Europe – EC since Feb 2011 ◦ But no test results from latter – yet! Other tests are corporate: Cisco, Akamai, NetFlix, BBC (internal by SamKnows April 2009)
- 19. EU Mobile datacosts: oligopoly 800% more than new entrants Source: http://rewheel.fi/insights_15.php
- 20. Meyer [Gigaom] concludes ―Whether or not you agree with Marsden‘s interpretation of Cisco‘s figures, his point highlights an inherent logical contradiction in the carriers‘ stance: ―if the ―data explosion‖ is so severe as to necessitate the creation of fast lanes with guaranteed QoS, ―doesn‘t that mean the ―best efforts‖ slow lanes will necessarily be slower than the equal-access lane we have today? ―And if that‘s not the case, then why create divided classes of internet access? They can‘t have it both ways.‖ Really?
- 21. Unbearable Lightness ofBeing Right? ◦ Listening to the truly shocking Luigi Gambardella at the European Parliament on Tuesday, and ◦ the Commissioner's evidence-avoiding claims of 'Big Data Explosions' Reminded me of Krugman's literary-inspired cri-de- ceour: NYTimes.com: "it‘s hard to think of any previous episode in in the history of economic thought in which we had as thorough a showdown between opposing views, and as thorough a collapse, practical and intellectual, of one side of the argument. And yet nothing changes. Not only don‘t the policies change; by and large even the people don‘t change... the lack of accountability, for ideas and people, is truly remarkable in a time of massive policy failure.― Internet policy is made by the deeply cynical, if not deeply corrupt Truly the revenge of the BellHeads!
- 22. Developing 2013 casestudies 1. Data protection in Social Networks ◦ Enforcement failures, Privacy by Design ◦ Dominance, network effects, corporate social irresponsibility 2. Search Neutrality ◦ Net neutrality argument ◦ Code-based solution to competition problem ◦ Prosumer focus cf. Microsoft
- 23. Legal Literature Previouslegal focus on elephant‘s trunk? ◦ Zittrain, Van Schewick ◦ General US scepticism of govt action ◦ Belief in ability of crowd-sourced heterachical regulation ◦ Ohm‘s Myth of the Super-User Information commonism: Lessig (1998), Benkler (1998) Information communism – Moglen (2003) ‗Separations principle‘ – Wu ◦ Based on reading of history of common carriage Empirical social scientific views: ◦ Mueller (2010), De Nardis (2009) ◦ Institutional economics and political science ◦ Power structures explicitly modelled (legal literature is critical, assumes capture but not radical alternatives)
- 24. Approach embraces complexity No easy examples that demonstrate 'truth' of ◦ technical, political, legal or economic solutions ◦ based on self-, co- or state regulatory approaches. ◦ Cf. Mansell (2012) Imagining the Internet Examine the deficiencies and benefits ◦ Match market and social developments ◦ With human rights concerns ◦ E.g. In fields of privacy and freedom of expression Note: analysis based on Art.19 UDHR not 1st Amendment Most of world uses variants of Article 19
- 25. Government and marketfailure Industry capture of regulators & legislators Incumbents introduce new barriers to entry Continued exclusion of wider civil society ◦ tenuous chain of accountability of participants ◦ to voters, shareholders and NGO stakeholders. ◦ effectiveness, accountability and legitimacy of these groups in representing the public interest?
- 26. Towards interoperability as prosumerlaw Solution for prosumers & competition ◦ enhance competitive production of public goods ◦ innovation, public safety, and fundamental rights Key aspects: ◦ Communications not competition policy ◦ Ex ante not ex post intervention ◦ interoperability (incl. FRAND) ◦ Fair and reasonable defined by govt procurement Not detailed rate of return regulation Note that IT software leaders make supra-normal returns ◦ detailed software interoperability, not the general description offered by Gasser/Palfrey 2012 Specifics in Gasser (2007)
- 27. What regulation teachesabout code Ex ante + ex post intervention Interoperability ◦ Procurement policy + regulation/competition A biased policy towards open code – ◦ Data open to mash-ups (government) ◦ Systems interoperable (procurement) ◦ Use of alternatives to market leader (e.g. Linux) Via competition remedies and sponsorship
- 28. Information regulation precedent Must-carry/must-offer obligations, ◦ imposed on many market actors, ◦ including obliged to offer FRAND terms (common carriers, broadband access providers, cable broadcasters, electronic program guides); Interconnection requirements on telcos, ◦ especially those with dominance— ◦ And AOL/Time Warner merger requirement for instant messaging interoperability Application programming interfaces (API) disclosure requirements, ◦ placed on Microsoft by EC upheld by ECJ
- 29. EC Mandated BrowserChoice 2011: MSFT refused to allow browser choice by default in Windows 7 ◦ fined €561m March 2013, ◦ previously fined €497m 2007 €860m 2012. Browser ―error‖ expensive line of code
- 30. TV Public BroadcasterExample Sky EPG carries terrestrial public service channels on 101-105 ◦ ―must carry‖ and ―due prominence‖ ◦ Sky One is Channel 106 ◦ HD public service channels Channels 141, 142, 178, 230! Communications Act 2003, s.310 ◦ Ofcom Code on EPGs
- 31. Kroes‘ promise post-Microsoft Will ―seriously explore all options to ensure that significant market players cannot just choose to deny interoperability. ―The Commission should not need to run an epic antitrust case every time software lacks interoperability.‖
- 32. Competition investigation bothsides of Atlantic since 2010: ◦ Settled with US authorities 3 Jan 2013 ◦ Settlement proposal to EC 1 Feb 2013 Experts have severely criticized timing and content of FTC settlement Grimmelman argued: ―If the final FTC statement had been any more favourable to Google, I‘d be checking the file metadata to see whether Google wrote it.‖ Google FTC and EC cases Source: Google proposal leaked to SearchEngineLand, 25/4/13
- 33. Grimmelman argued: ―If thefinal FTC statement had been any more favourable to Google, I‘d be checking the file metadata to see whether Google wrote it.‖
- 34. 4 lines ofcomplaint Search bias: Google favours own products over competitors in results Vertical Search Opt-Out – ◦ Google don‘t let websites opt out of particular uses of pages it indexes. ◦ complete opt-out giving up all Google traffic, a significant driver of traffic – ◦ especially Europe: Google has 90% search market in UK, Nl, France, Germany Restricted 3rd party use of AdWords: ◦ ―API Client may not [function] copies data between Google and 3rd Party.‖ ◦ Companies can advertise on Google and Bing, ◦ but cannot use a program to copy Google AdWords campaigns over to Bing. ◦ dropped by Google as token interoperability sop to FTC‘s investigation; Injunctions against standards-essential patents, ◦ including those by Google-acquired Motorola Mobility see Posner‘s now–famous judgment in June 2012 ◦ FTC concluded (4-1) unfair competition, Google agreed not to engage in it ◦ fires a shot not just at Google, but also at rivals –clever concession by Google!
- 35. Google and competitorsroutinely privately regulate other‘s code points 3 and 4, Google claimed the right to regulate others‘ use of code, to use the AdWords API or to use Motorola Mobility‘s patents..
- 36. ―Prosumer law‖ approach interoperability and content neutrality 1. Google to reinforce search neutrality 1. NOT bias results with search algorithms 2. relatively trivial (by Google standards) amendment to its code 1. allow websites more flexibility in listing, 2. rather than complete opt-out via the existing robots.txt convention.
- 37. We do notmake strong normative claim that Google should adopt neutral perspective ◦ (nor do we adopt approach to net neutrality), We advocate truth-in-advertising Any search engine (or ISP using search) ◦ claiming verifiably neutral results ◦ produce the same
- 38. Or prominently advertiseits product as 1. commercially driven, 2. affiliate-biased 3. selective search engine.
- 39. Requirement does notimpose significant regulatory burden reinforces the brands of search providers of integrity. would not apply to selective search providers if labelled such ‗a search engine which selectively provides you with search results according in part to its commercial affiliations‘ ◦ (or equivalent wording) prominently displayed above search results in that case.
- 40. Code-based solutions lighterthan €1b fines or structural separation In book, we suggest similar approach ◦ to network neutrality violators could not advertise their services as allowing end-users‘ choice ◦ in accessing the ‗Internet‘ when in fact it is a commercial Intranet ◦ to which full access is provided.
- 41. Social networks: USsolutions instead of EU non-enforcement Facebook‘s 400m European users 27 national regulators of personal data. Facebook chose regulator relocated in 2006 ◦ from Dublin to Portarlington, Co. Laois, Ireland, ◦ Google is also regulated from Portarlington. While German state and federal regulators and others may rattle sabres at Facebook, Irish regulator audited Facebook spring 2012 insisting on remedial action on nine counts
- 42. Prosumer law: directintervention Abusive dominant social networking sites prevent Facebook, Google+ any other ◦ from erecting a fence around its piece of the information commons: ◦ ensure interoperability with open standards Which lowers entry barriers (in theory!) Enforcement of privacy law even in Portarlington
- 44. 50 ways toleave Facebook Not sufficient to permit data deletion ◦ as that only covers the user‘s tracks. Interconnection and interoperability, ◦ more than transparency and ◦ theoretical possibility to switch. Ability for prosumers to interoperate to permit exit ◦ Lower entry barriers tend to lead to increased consumer welfare
- 45. US FTC constantaudit Class actions: 2011 $8.5m Google Buzz. Jan 2013, Facebook $20m Nov 2012, FTC Google settled for $22.5m ◦ tracking cookies for Safari browser users 2012, both agreed to settle privacy complaints ◦ FTC privacy audit of products for a 20-year period. ◦ That‘s until 2032! Sector-specific regulation of social networking already exists de facto in the United States, Europeans wring their hands on the sidelines. ◦ proposed new European Regulation ◦ unlikely to be implemented before 2016.
- 46. Euro-Interoperability Framework Responseto multi-€bn competition cases: ◦ Microsoft saga (to 2009), Intel (2009), Apple (2010), Rambus (2009) ◦ Google (2013?) perhaps Facebook.... ◦ Coates (2011: Chapters 5-6) Announced by DG Comp (CONNECT) Commissioner Kroes 2009-2010 Bias in favour of interoperability in policy Concerns are broader than competition ◦ Include privacy, IPR, security, fundamental rights
- 47. Economics and HumanRights Open data, open code, and human rights Blizzard of Internet governance principles 2011 ◦ Law/economics, or human rights, do not translate ◦ OECD/EC vs. UNHCR/OSCE/Council of Europe This apparent dialogue of the deaf ◦ competition policy & corporate governance problem Urgent task: dialogue between discrete expert fields ◦ ICT growth driver and transformative technology ◦ transformative role in communication and dialogue ‗arms trade‘ in censorship technology; Twitter ‗revolution‘ (sic)
- 48. Developing study ofcode regulation Similarities and cross-over with ◦ complexity science ◦ network science ◦ web science/graph theory Match Internet regulation to complexity theory Longstaff (2003), Cherry (2008), Schneider/Bauer (2007) Network science fusion of scientific/fundamental elements from various components Internet Science? EC Network of Excellence
- 49. Questions? Book published22 March 2013 ‗Prosumer law‘ article (early version now on SSRN) Comments welcome
Editor's Notes
- #33 http://searchengineland.com/googles-new-european-antitrust-serps-heres-what-theyll-look-like-156904