Most countries, don't have to fear internet quality problems in the same way as would be possible in the USA. The US competition watchdog has little power to hold telcos accountable to the nature of their broadband services. Back in 1996 broadband was classified as a content service and not a telecom service. So, for example, if a telco wants to provide preferred access to Google, it can sell them a superior broadband services which could create a two speed internet service...
It is one of those surreal, ironic moments in time. This coming week, an event called the Internet Governance Forum (IGF) 2017 will be held at Geneva in the old League of Nations headquarters now known as the Palais des Nations. On its agenda is a workshop to discuss "A Digital Geneva Convention to protect cyberspace." If the IGF participants, as they enter the Palais grounds, simply look in the opposite direction south across the Place des Nations, they would see 100 meters away, a glass cube building provided by the Republic and Canton of Geneva.
The success of the internet demonstrates that we now depend on network operators to assure that services like telephony work. The carriers are pushing back on neutrality because their business model is threatened by a level playing field. We should be encouraging innovative internet-native business models rather than working to preserve an industry threatened by innovation.
Like the poetic prose of Bob Dylan, the reality of modern technology cannot be ignored: "the times they are a-changin'." Transitioning from the novelty of the Internet, society is embracing connected technology as the new digital frontier. Dominated by the Internet of Things ("IoT"), the future will be one of increased interconnection of wireless and computing devices in everyday objects, allowing these devices to send and receive personal data. IoT's limits appear boundless, extending from physical devices and home appliances to vehicles and medical implants.
As I noted last month, this Friday, December 15, 2017, at 15:00 UTC is the deadline to nominate someone for the Internet Society's Board of Trustees. Anyone who supports the mission of the Internet Society is welcome to submit a nomination (for yourself or for someone you think should be considered). The Internet Society serves a pivotal role in the world as a leader on Internet policy, technical, economic, and social matters, and as the organizational home of the Internet Engineering Task Force (IETF).
On 11 December 2017, about 25 participants from Europe and the US attended the public consultation for the brand new GDPR Domain Industry Playbook by eco (Association of the Internet Industry, based in Germany) at the representation of the German federal state Lower Saxony to the European Union in Brussels. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) poses a challenge for the Registries, Registrars, Resellers and ICANN.
A look into the past reveals that continuous developments in weaponry technology have been the reason for arms control conventions and bans. The banning of the crossbow by Pope Urban II in 1096, because it threatened to change warfare in favour of poorer peasants, the banning of poisoned bullets in 1675 by the Strasbourg Agreement, and the Geneva protocol banning the use of biological and chemical weapons in 1925 after world war 1, all prove that significant technological developments have caused the world to agree not to use certain weapons.
Recently, a colleague in the Bellisario College of Communications asked me who gets a freedom boost from the FCC's upcoming dismantling of network neutrality safeguards. He noted that Chairman Pai made sure that the title of the FCC's Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is: Restoring Internet Freedom. My colleague wanted to know whose freedom the FCC previously subverted and how removing consumer safeguards promotes freedom.
Steeped deep in discussions around the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) for the past several months, it has occurred to me that I've been answering the same question for over a decade: "What happens if WHOIS data is not accessible?" One of the answers has been and remains the same: People will likely sue and serve a lot of subpoenas. This may seem extreme, and some will write this off as mere hyperbole, but the truth is that the need for WHOIS data to address domain name matters will not disappear.
As we enter the seventh round of the net neutrality fight, advocates continue to make the same argument they've offered since 2002: infrastructure companies will do massive harm to little guys unless restrained by strict regulation. This idea once made intuitive sense, but it has been bypassed by reality. ... When Tim Wu wrote his first net neutrality paper, the largest telecoms were Verizon, AT&T, and SBC; they stood at numbers 11, 15, and 27 respectively in the Fortune 500 list.