Search results

co-regulatory body in 2016, to which one can anticipate some co-regulatory recognition for the Open Internet Code of Practice. Ed Vaizey stuck to his script on net neutrality self-regulation, even producing it as evidence of effective self-regulation before Parliament in March 2016. 94 Yet we have seen there is no evidence to demonstrate its effectiveness, and the forensic examination by Alissa

in Network neutrality
Open Access (free)
From policy to law to regulation

This book explains the beginnings of net neutrality regulation in the United States and Europe, and some of the current debate over access to Specialised Services: fast lanes with higher Quality of Service (QoS). It examines the new European law of 2015 and the interaction between that law and interception/privacy. The book takes a deep dive into UK self- and co-regulation of net neutrality. In each of the national case studies, initial confusion at lack of clarity in net neutrality laws gave way to significant cases, particularly since 2014, which have given regulators the opportunity to clarify their legislation or regulation. The majority of such cases relate to mobile net neutrality, and in particular so-called 'zero rating' practices. The book compares results and proposes a regulatory toolkit for those jurisdictions that intend effective practical partial or complete implementation of net neutrality. It sets out a future research agenda for exploring implementation of regulation. The book outlines competition policy's purpose, referring to the exceptionally rigorous recent analysis of competition law suitability to regulate net neutrality by Maniadaki. Having analysed regulatory tools with little chance of success, it then examines what communications regulators actually do: regulating telecoms access based on the UK case study. The book considers whether zero rating poses a serious challenge to Open Internet use. It explores some of the wider international problems of regulating the newest manifestation of discrimination: zero rating. The book also considers the various means by which government can regulate net neutrality.

Open Access (free)
Governing Precarity through Adaptive Design

safe, logoed, glitzy and smart. Besides establishment acceptance, humanitarian innovation draws positivity from its disavowal of past failures and commitment to a future of ‘failing-forward in a spirit of honesty’ ( HPG, 2018 : 132). Transparency regarding current systemic ‘pathologies’ like institutionalising self-interest or neglecting the agency of the disaster-affected ( ibid .: 22–3) is part of the self-cleansing necessary to birth a humanitarianism 2.0. This paper, however, questions whether humanitarian innovation can be any more effective

Journal of Humanitarian Affairs
Open Access (free)
Neutrality, discrimination and common carriage

zombie 2 that has sprung to life recently. It is a policy of Internet 3 non-discrimination based on innovation, free speech, privacy and content provider commercial self-interest, imposed on the technocratic economic regulation of telecommunications (telco) local access networks. The regulators, telcos and governments don’t like it one bit. The laws and regulations are formally ‘Open Internet’ not

in Network neutrality

Union legislation and regulation on the Open Internet Stage of Legislation/Regulation 2007 Telecoms Package a 2013 Telecoms Single Market b Commission adoption of Proposal 13 November 2007 c 11 September 2013 d Parliament Opinion on First Reading 24 September 2008 3 April 2014 Parliament Opinion on Trilogue

in Network neutrality
Open Access (free)

Gazette publication date Brazil Law No. 12.965 23/4/2014 Consultation 2015–16, no implementation g Canada Hearing of 2010 Telecom Act 1993 Zero rating 2015 United States Open Internet Order under Title II, Communications Act 1934 as amended by Telecoms Act 1996 2015 Zero rating unenforced except by merger condition UK Code of Practice 2011 Self-regulatory Unenforced

in Network neutrality

United States regulation prior to the 2015 Open Internet Order is well-documented, 11 with the 2010 Order 12 being highly controversial in its exclusion of mobile (‘wireless’), resulting in several data caps being imposed, notably by AT&T in 2011, 13 zero-rating plans being adopted and the Order itself becoming incapable of effective enforcement following a litigation

in Network neutrality
Analysing the example of data territorialisation

infrastructure. Furthermore, if the functioning of the Internet infrastructure does not appear as self-organising, but as steerable or even with a normative responsibility to steer (in order to secure data from foreign actors), new possibilities for more and more far-reaching regulation are opened up. Government interference within the telecommunications sector becomes more common and can be legitimised

in Security/ Mobility

, despite the 11 May 2016 Regulation. At the 2015 Summit of the Americas in Panama on 10 April, President Rousseff met Mark Zuckerberg and was photographed with him, 29 he in a suit, she in a Facebook hoodie. 30 Her pronouncements in favour of Facebook’s work in Brazil with poorer communities, and by inference Internet.Org, were a public scandal in view of the open

in Network neutrality

% O2 29% Virgin 20% Vodafone 23% TalkTalk 14% Three 12% Others 12% (EE 4%) Others 7% Source: Ofcom (2015a), Figure 4.44. Mobile termination regulatory battles The Open Internet element of Regulation 2015/2120 will be examined in Chapter 4 and forms the central element in this book. Note the

in Network neutrality