{"id":10508,"date":"2017-11-21T19:36:55","date_gmt":"2017-11-21T19:36:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/?p=10508"},"modified":"2017-11-21T19:36:55","modified_gmt":"2017-11-21T19:36:55","slug":"why-the-fccs-proposed-internet-rules-may-spell-trouble-ahead","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.lifeandnews.com\/articles\/why-the-fccs-proposed-internet-rules-may-spell-trouble-ahead\/","title":{"rendered":"Why the FCC’s proposed internet rules may spell trouble ahead"},"content":{"rendered":"

David Choffnes<\/a>, Northeastern University<\/a><\/em><\/span><\/p>\n

As the Federal Communications Commission takes up a formal proposal<\/a> to reverse the Obama-era Open Internet Order<\/a>, a key question consumers and policymakers alike are asking is: What difference do these rules make?<\/p>\n

My research team has been studying one key element of the regulations \u2013 called \u201cthrottling,\u201d the practice of limiting download speeds \u2013 for several years, spanning a period both before the 2015 Open Internet Order was issued and after it took effect. Our findings<\/a> reveal not only the state of internet openness before the Obama initiative but also the measurable results of the policy\u2019s effect.<\/p>\n

The methods we used and the tools we developed investigate how internet service providers manage your traffic and demonstrate how open the internet really is \u2013 or isn\u2019t \u2013 as a result of evolving internet service plans, as well as political and regulatory changes. Regular people can explore their own services with our mobile app for Android<\/a>, which is out now; an iOS version is coming soon. We\u2019re working with the French equivalent of the FCC<\/a> to promote our measurement tools in France to help audit whether French ISPs are compliant with local net neutrality protections. Other countries, including the U.S., could follow the French lead, using our tools to evaluate their internet service quality.<\/p>\n

Rules take effect<\/h2>\n

Before the Open Internet Order took effect in 2015, companies running cellular networks were allowed to use throttling to manage how much data their networks needed to handle at any given time. To do this, some companies capped users\u2019 download speeds, which could cause video to stream at lower quality, with less-sharp images that were blurry during action sequences.<\/p>\n

But there were limited rules governing how the mobile companies enforced those caps: We found some providers slowing down YouTube videos but not Netflix or other video services<\/a>. This is an example of a major concern net neutrality supporters have: that internet providers might give preference to traffic from one site or another \u2013 perhaps making video providers pay extra to have their material delivered at high speed<\/a>. If the speed or quality consumers can get from an online service depends on how much providers can afford to pay, that can put startups and innovators at a disadvantage to existing internet giants.<\/p>\n

When it took effect, the Open Internet Order allowed internet providers to use throttling in only a limited way, under the so-called \u201creasonable network management<\/a>\u201d provision. Instead of singling out specific types of data for throttling, mobile companies \u2013 and wired internet providers as well \u2013 were required to do so in a way that treats all traffic equally. We observed<\/a> the companies that had slowed down YouTube but not Netflix shifting their policies to reflect this new requirement.<\/p>\n

The return of throttling<\/h2>\n

In late 2015, though, T-Mobile announced a program it called \u201cBinge On<\/a>,\u201d departing from its competitors<\/a> by offering its customers \u201cfree\u201d video streaming \u2013 the ability to watch some video services on their devices without counting against monthly high-speed data limits. The trade-off was that their video quality from those providers would be limited in the best case to the equivalent of a regular DVD<\/a> \u2013 not the high-definition video most people have come to expect, and which mobile data networks are capable of carrying. Some video sites would come in at higher quality, but their data would count against users\u2019 monthly caps. Other sites\u2019 videos, strangely enough, would come in at low quality, though the data would still count against users\u2019 monthly caps.<\/p>\n

When my team heard the announcement, we were perplexed. It seemed clear T-Mobile was throttling, perhaps even preferentially<\/a>, choosing a handful of services to exempt from users\u2019 monthly data caps, while continuing to count data from other video providers. And many users were opted in by default<\/a>, potentially never knowing that T-Mobile had decided for them whether they could stream high-quality video. But most confounding, how did T-Mobile know what \u201cvideo\u201d was, as distinct from other data flowing through its networks? <\/p>\n

\n