Facebook's Plan To Lock India's Poor Into Facebook's Private Internet Fails — India Rejects Scheme

Demonstration by the Free Software Movement of Karnataka in support of net neutrality; April 2015.
(Photo by Viggy prabhu)

By Lauren McCauley
In a move that open internet advocates say will "resonate around the world," India's top telecom regulator on Monday struck a decisive blow against Facebook's "discriminatory" and controlling internet scheme known as Free Basics.

The Telecom Regulatory Authority of India ruled against two-tiered pricing for different data platforms or content, effectively banning Free Basics, which only allows users free access to a small number of curated websites, including Facebook.

"The message is clear," declared Renata Avila, Web We Want programme manager at the World Wide Web Foundation, which was founded by Sir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the web. "We can’t create a two-tier Internet—one for the haves, and one for the have-nots. We must connect everyone to the full potential of the open Web."

"As the country with the second largest number of Internet users worldwide, this decision will resonate around the world," Avila added.

The Prohibition of Discriminatory Tariffs for Data Services Regulations, 2016 will "disallow service providers to offer or charge discriminatory tariffs for data services on the basis of content being accessed by a consumer," Sudhir Gupta, TRAI secretary, said in a statement.

"While formulating the regulations, 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," Gupta said.

Free Basics—which has launched in 18 mostly developing countries— has faced mounting criticisms from net neutrality advocates, who said the program essentially allowed Facebook to serve as the internet "gatekeeper" for hundreds and thousands of the world's poorest people.

Open internet advocates celebrated the ruling Monday, which came after the TRAI issued a temporary ban on the service in late December in order to investigate whether it is in violation of net neutrality protections.

Mishi Choudhary, executive director of India's Software Freedom Law Center, said the group is "delighted by the regulator’s recognition of the irreversible damage that stands to be done to the open Internet by allowing differential pricing."

"Today’s decision is a major victory for free speech and for Internet users everywhere, no matter what Mark Zuckerberg’s well-paid public relations team might tell you," said Evan Greer, campaign director for the U.S.-based Fight for the Future. According to the digital rights group, telecom companies such as T-Mobile and Verizon have been pushing similar practices in the U.S., claiming that they do not violate net neutrality.

"The basic principles of net neutrality are what have made the Web into what it is today," Greer continued. "Zero rating schemes and discriminatory pricing are just another tool to favor some applications over others. They allow ISPs to pick winners and losers, and create the same harms as fast lanes and slow lanes. They give Internet Service Providers too much power to shape Internet users’ online experience, and open the floodgates for potential censorship and abuse."

Companies that violate the order will be fined 50,000 rupees per day (around $740/day) up to a maximum of 5 million rupees, according to the ruling, which will be reviewed in two years. As TechCrunch notes, "Those numbers are negligible for Facebook, which has invested millions in this program, but it’s a crucial public opinion victory against the company that is at stake here."

Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

Ethiopia’s Invisible Crisis: Government Responds to Land Rights Activists With Kidnapping and Torture

Oromo Woman, Ethiopia. (Photo by Rod Waddington)

By Felix Horne
“Badessa” was a third-year engineering student in western Ethiopia in April 2014 when he and most of his classmates joined a protest over the potential displacement of ethnic Oromo farmers like his family because of the government’s plan to expand the capital, Addis Ababa, into the farmland.

The night of the first protests he was arrested and taken to an unmarked detention center. Each night he heard his fellow students screaming in agony as one by one they were tortured by interrogators. “I still hear the screams,” he told me later. Eventually his turn came to be interrogated. “What kind of country is it when I voice concern that my family could lose their farm for a government project and I am arrested, tortured, and now living as a refugee?”

Since mid-November, large-scale protests have again swept through Oromia, Ethiopia’s largest region, and the response from security forces has again been brutal. They have killed countless students and farmers, and arrested opposition politicians and countless others. On January 12, the government announced it was cancelling the master plan, but that hasn’t stopped the protests and the resultant crackdown.

Although the protest was initially about the potential for displacement, it has become about so much more. Despite being the biggest ethnic group in Ethiopia, Oromos have often felt marginalized by successive governments and feel unable to voice concerns over government policy. Oromos who express dissent are often arrested and tortured or otherwise mistreated in detention, accused of belonging to the Oromo Liberation Front (OLF), a group that has long been mostly inactive and that the government designated a terrorist organization.

The government is doing all it can to make sure that the news of these protests doesn’t circulate within the country or reach the rest of the world. Ethiopia’s allies, including governments in the region and the African Union, have largely stood by as Ethiopia has steadily strangled the ability of ordinary Ethiopians to access information and peacefully express their views, whether in print or in public demonstrations. But they should be worried about what is happening in Oromia right now, as Ethiopia — Africa’s second most-populous country and a key security ally of the US — grapples with this escalating crisis.

This may prove to be the biggest political event to hit Ethiopia since the controversial 2005 elections resulted in a crackdown on protesters in which security forces killed almost 200 people and arrested tens of thousands .

Although the government focuses its efforts on economic development and on promoting a narrative of economic success, for many farmers in Oromia and elsewhere economic development comes at a devastating cost. As one Oromo student told me “All we hear about is development. The new foreign-owned farms and roads is what the world knows, but that just benefits the government. For us [Oromos] it means we lose our land and then we can’t sustain ourselves anymore.”

It has become almost impossible for journalists and human rights monitors to get information about what is happening, especially in smaller towns and rural areas outside Addis Ababa.

Ethiopia is one of the most restrictive environments for independent investigation, reporting, and access to information, earning the country a top-10 spot in the global ranking of jailers of journalists. For the past decade, the government has limited access to information by regularly threatening, imprisoning, and prosecuting individual activists, bloggers, and journalists and sending a clear public message that the media must self-censor and that dissent or criticism of government policy will not be tolerated.

Independent media have dwindled—more than 70 journalists have fled the country since 2010 and five of the last independent publications closed down before the May elections. Meanwhile the state-run media parrot the government line, in this case claiming that the Oromo protesters are linked to “terrorist groups” and “anti-peace elements” who are “aiming to create havoc and chaos.”

Very few international journalists are based in Ethiopia. Those who have attempted to cover events on the ground since the protests began have braved threats and arrest, but these are a few lone voices.

Given restrictions on local and international media, you might think that ordinary citizens, local activists, and nongovernmental organizations would fill the gaps and document the events in Oromia. But Ethiopia’s human rights activists and independent groups have been crushed by draconian legislation and threats, and even ordinary people are often terrified to speak out. People who dare to speak to international media outlets or independent groups have been arrested. The government taps phone lines and uses European-made spyware to target journalists and opposition members outside the country.

Since the protests began, the restrictions have become even harsher. Authorities have arrested people, including health workers, for posting photos and videos or messages of support on social media. The state-run telecom network has also been cut in some areas, making it much more difficult to get information out from hotspots.

Radio and satellite television outlets based outside Ethiopia, including some diaspora stations, play a key role disseminating information about the protests within Oromia, as they also did in 2014 during the last round of protests. Last year numerous people were arrested in Oromia during the protests merely for watching the diaspora-run Oromia Media Network (OMN).

The government has frequently jammed foreign stations in the past, violating international regulations in the process. When the government is unable to jam it puts pressure on the satellite companies themselves. Throughout the protests government agents have reportedly been destroying satellite dishes.

Yet despite the clear efforts to muzzle voices, information is coming out. Some protesters are losing their fear of expressing dissent and are speaking openly about the challenges they are facing. Social media plays a key role in disseminating information as people share photos and videos of rallies, of bloodied protesters, and of expressions of peaceful resistance in the face of security forces using excessive force.

In the coming days and weeks Ethiopia’s friends and partners should condemn the use of excessive force by security forces that is causing tragic and unnecessary deaths. But they should also be clear that Ethiopia needs to ensure access to information and stop disrupting telecommunications and targeting social media users. The world needs to know what is happening in Oromia—and Ethiopians have a right to know what is happening in their country.

Reprinted with permission from Human Rights Watch.

How States Are Fighting to Keep Towns From Offering Their Own Broadband — Monopolies for Corporations, Competition for Everyone Else

North Carolina and Tennessee are the latest states to side with telecoms, which have long lobbied against allowing cities to become Internet providers.

By Leticia Miranda,  Pro Publica
Earlier this year, the Federal Communications Commission voted to ease the way for cities to become Internet service providers. So-called municipal broadband is already a reality in a few towns, often providing Internet access and faster service to rural communities that cable companies don’t serve.

The cable and telecommunications industry have long lobbied against city-run broadband, arguing that taxpayer money should not fund potential competitors to private companies.

The telecom companies have what may seem like an unlikely ally: states. Roughly 20 states have restrictions against municipal broadband.

And the attorneys general in North Carolina and Tennessee have recently filed lawsuits in an attempt to overrule the FCC and block towns in these states from expanding publicly funded Internet service.

North Carolina’s attorney general argued in a suit filed last month that the “FCC unlawfully inserted itself between the State and the State’s political subdivisions.” Tennessee’s attorney general filed a similar suit in March.

Tennessee has hired one of the country’s largest telecom lobbying and law firms, Wiley Rein, to represent the state in its suit. The firm, founded by a former FCC chairman, has represented AT&T, Verizon and Qwest, among others.

James Tierney, director of the National State Attorneys General Program at Columbia Law School, said it is not unusual for attorneys general to seek outside counsel for specialized cases that they view as a priority.

Asked about the suit, the Tennessee attorney general’s office told ProPublica, “This is a question of the state’s sovereign ability to define the role of its local governmental units.” North Carolina Attorney General’s office said in a statement that the “legal defense of state laws by the Attorney General’s office is a statutory requirement.”

As the New York Times detailed last year, state attorneys general have become a major target of corporate lobbyists and contributors including AT&T, Comcast and T-Mobile.

North Carolina is no exception. The state’s Attorney General Roy Cooper received roughly $35,000 from the telecommunications industry in his 2012 run for office. Only the state’s retail industry gave more.

The donations are just a small part of contributions the industry has made in the states. In North Carolina’s 2014 elections, the telecommunications industry gave a combined $870,000 to candidates in both parties, which made it one of the top industries to contribute that year. Candidates in Tennessee received nearly $921,000 from AT&T and other industry players in 2014.

The FCC’s decision came after two towns – City of Wilson in North Carolina and Chattanooga in Tennessee – appealed to the agency to be able to expand their networks.

The vote has rattled some companies. In a government filing earlier this year, Comcast cited the FCC’s decision as a risk to the company’s business: “Any changes to the regulatory framework applicable to any of our services or businesses could have a negative impact on our businesses and results of operations.”

If the court upholds the FCC’s authority to preempt restrictions in North Carolina and Tennessee, it may embolden other cities to file petitions with the agency, according to lawyer Jim Baller, who represents Wilson and the Chattanooga Electric Power Board. “A victory by the FCC would be a very welcome result for many communities across America,” said Baller.

For some residents in and outside of Chattanooga, clearing the way to city-run broadband would mean the sort of faster Internet access that others might take for granted.

For 12 years, Eva VanHook, 39, of Georgetown, Tennessee, lived with a satellite broadband connection so slow that she’d read a book while waiting for a web page to load. In order for her son to access online materials for his school assignments, she’d drive him 12 miles to their church parking lot, where he could access faster WiFi.

Charter, the local Internet service provider, declined several requests by her husband to build lines out to her home. Only last month did Charter connect her home to the Internet. “Even the possibility to jump on [the local utility’s] gigabit network would blow our minds right now,” VanHook said. “There is nothing faster than Chattanooga. Just through meeting them and hearing them speak and having them understand what’s going on, that’s the kind of place I want to do business.”

Reprinted with permission from ProPublica

Killing Net Neutrality: The Republican 'Internet Freedom Act' Is Designed to Destroy Net Neutrality

Every time the Republicans want to rip you off or steal your liberty, they shout the word "Freedom"

The Republicans want the kind of Internet depicted on the right.

By Ben Collins
All but two of the 31 co-sponsors of a House bill to kill net neutrality received thousands from telecoms in just the last election cycle. Is their cash enough to end a free Web?

“The Internet Freedom Act” is a House bill intended to destroy newly instituted Net Neutrality rights. And of the bill's 31 co-sponsors, all but two of them received money from a major telecom or its lobby in 2014 alone.

The 29 co-sponsors received over $800,000 from AT&T, Verizon, Comcast, Time Warner Cable, and their lobby, the National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA).

The legislation would invalidate rules instituted by the FCC last week that declared the Internet a public utility and disallowed telecoms from forcibly slowing or blocking Web traffic to competitors, or separating the Web into artificial, cable package-like tiers for lower-paying users. The bill was brought to the House floor by Marsha Blackburn (R-TN) and 30 Republican colleagues.

Read More

New Net Neutraility Rules Approved By the FCC: Here's What You Need To Know

The FCC's Net Neutrality Vote

Rally for net neutrality, Los Angeles, CA - July 23, 2014. (Photo by Free Press)

By Eyder Peralta

What does net neutrality mean?

Here's the Cliffs Notes version from NPR's Elise Hu:

"Net neutrality is the concept that your Internet provider should be a neutral gateway to everything on the Internet, not a gatekeeper deciding to load some sites slower than others or impose fees for faster service."

In other words, it's a concept in which Internet service providers (ISPs) don't discriminate when it comes to Internet traffic.

RELATED STORY: F.C.C. Approves Net Neutrality Rules, Classifying Broadband Internet Service as a Utility

[...]

What is the FCC voting on?

The Federal Communications Commission is voting on whether to reclassify broadband access as a "telecommunications service under Title II."

In layman's terms, the FCC is looking to reclassify broadband as a utility, which would give the commission more regulatory power over Internet providers.

RELATED STORY: Why Net Neutrality Isn't Worth Celebrating

[...]

The proposed rules are pretty lengthy, but from an FCC fact sheet, here are the three things that the rules would ban that matter most to consumers:

"No Blocking: broadband providers may not block access to legal content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

"No Throttling: broadband providers may not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices.

"No Paid Prioritization: broadband providers may not favor some lawful Internet traffic over other lawful traffic in exchange for consideration — in other words, no 'fast lanes.' This rule also bans ISPs from prioritizing content and services of their affiliates."

Read More

Was the FCC Pushed in the Right Direction by Grassroots Power?: FCC Considers Forcing Net Neutrality Via New Regulations

FCC chairman likely to support strict net neutrality protections after backing off from pro-industry initiatives

After months of pressure from grassroots groups, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is
likely to introduce strong net neutrality protections. (Photo: ALA Washington Office/
flickr/cc)

By Nadia Prupis
Following a months-long campaign by consumer advocacy groups that pushed for strict protection of the internet, Federal Communications Commissioner Tom Wheeler appears to be ready to introduce some of the strongest regulations possible on Thursday ahead of the FCC's final net neutrality vote on February 26, according to reports.

Those regulations include redefining broadband as a public utility under Title II of the Communications Act, a policy change that has been touted by internet watchdog groups as one of the most important net neutrality protections available.

Once a lobbyist for the cable and telecommunications industries, Wheeler initially supported lax regulations that critics said would open the door to controversial paid-prioritization policies, known as "fast lanes," allowing internet service providers to charge higher fees for speedier website loading times.

According to reporting by Politico on Monday, "interviews with FCC officials, industry executives and representatives of public interest groups reveal the origins of his dramatic pivot on this issue: an intense and relatively brief grass-roots lobbying campaign that targeted two people — him and President Barack Obama."

Pressure from digital rights groups like the Electronic Frontier Foundation and Free Press, which galvanized support from consumers and progressive media figures, saw Wheeler steadily backpedaling on his initiatives last year. His shift appeared near-complete after President Barack Obama spoke out in favor of strict net neutrality regulations on November 10.

Wheeler proposed in April new rules that would allow ISPs to create fast lane deals with internet companies as long as they were "commercially reasonable."

In response, a coalition of internet watchdogs and consumer advocacy groups launched a months-long series of campaigns against the chairman's proposals, while protesters camped out in front of FCC headquarters. On June 1, Last Week Tonight host John Oliver ridiculed Wheeler and his proposed rules in a segment that quickly went viral, sending hundreds of thousands of consumers to the FCC website to comment in favor of stronger net neutrality regulations. Within months, four million emails and comments had come in, breaking FCC records.

Wheeler then moved towards a hybrid proposal that would impose Title II rules on parts of the internet, but not all of it. That, too, was met with disapproval by watchdogs and tech companies alike.

Meanwhile, Obama had also been under pressure from internet advocacy groups, who urged him to speak out in favor of stricter regulations. On November 10, he did just that, issuing a statement that called for using a Title II reclassification to safeguard the internet, "one of the most significant democratizing influences the world has ever known."

Earlier this month, Wheeler indicated support for reclassification of the internet as a public utility under Title II, bringing praise from Free Press president and CEO Craig Aaron who said, "Chairman Wheeler appears to have heard the demands of the millions of Internet users who have called for real net neutrality protections."

Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

FCC Sets Deadline for Vote on Net Neutrality: Officials Say New Regulations Will be Decided in February

An image from a pro-net neutrality vigil at the White House on November 6, 2014. (Photo: Stephen Melkisethian/flickr/cc)

By Nadia Prupis
The Federal Communications Commission will vote on new rules and restrictions on net neutrality in February, officials said Friday.

According to a Washington Post report, FCC chairman Tom Wheeler is planning to circulate a draft proposal to fellow commissioners "with an eye toward approving the measure weeks later."

At the heart of the debate is the issue of equality on the internet. Supporters of net neutrality are calling for strict rules that would prevent cable giants like Comcast and Verizon from using so-called "fast lanes" to speed up or slow down websites—and charge content providers higher rates for the privilege of faster loading times.

Opponents are pushing for looser regulations that they say would prevent overuse of bandwidth and support investments in better networks.

Although the specifics of Wheeler's proposal are still unpublished, the Post reports that "momentum has been building recently for far more aggressive regulations than Wheeler had initially proposed."

A former Comcast lobbyist, Wheeler supported ending net neutrality as recently as May of 2014, but began planning to expand the FCC's authority over internet service providers later that year—particularly as President Barack Obama continued to voice ever-growing support for stronger regulations.

Specifically, Obama called on the FCC to govern ISPs using Title II of the Communications Act, which would reclassify the internet as a public utility.

Friday's news clears up weeks of speculation over when the FCC would take its next step on net neutrality. However, as the Post explains, setting a firm meeting date so near in the future means that Wheeler "does not see the need for more public input on the benefits and drawbacks of using Title II... It also implies the FCC will not be able to avoid a showdown with Congress over net neutrality."

Bolstered by regaining control over the Senate, Republicans are expected to introduce their own legislation on net neutrality soon. The industry-backed proposal, while banning the use of fast lanes, would nonetheless avoid using Title II to reclassify the internet as a public utility.

Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

The Net Is Mightier Than The Sword: James Corbett Speaks on the Power of the Internet at TEDxGroningen (Video)

Now That Obama Is Pushing For Net Neutrality, Pro-Neutrality Internet Giants Get Quiet: With Friends Like These, Who Needs Enemies?

Barack Obama explains his position on net neutrality. (Screen capture from video)

By Farhad Manjoo
Silicon Valley’s giant companies have been quiet lately on the question of whether the government should protect an open Internet, which they’ve previously argued is vital to innovation. Don’t count on them staking out a stronger position even though President Obama has stepped into the fray, and Washington looks to be gearing up for an epic battle over the rules that govern the Internet.

On Monday, Mr. Obama offered his support for a strict set of rules that, among other proscriptions, would prohibit broadband carriers from blocking online content, and would restrict them from giving priority access over their lines to companies that pay an extra fee.

In another era, the White House’s position might have elicited squeals of joy from the technology giants, which have long maintained that the future of innovation online depends on such strict net neutrality rules. But Google, which was once the industry’s most ardent supporter of net neutrality, and Facebook, which could mobilize millions of supporters through its service, both declined to comment on Mr. Obama’s position.

Read More

Obama's Defense of Net Neutrality Sets Up Battle with Congress: Republicans Already Spewing Weird Lies About Net Neutrality

Photo by Free Press.

By Joe Garofoli
Seven years ago, then-candidate Barack Obama promised to “take a backseat to no one” in protecting net neutrality — the principle that Internet service providers treat all online traffic equally.

But since then, activists have complained that President Obama has done little to stop proposed federal rules that would allow companies to pay for their content to travel in an online “fast lane,” also known as paid prioritization.

That changed Monday when Obama took his strongest stand yet to back net neutrality, setting up a showdown with the Republican-led Congress over the future of the Internet.

“I am asking for an explicit ban on paid prioritization,” Obama said Monday in a video posted on the White House website.

[...]

Republican dissemblers say net neutrality is 'over regulation' and claim gutting net neutrality will keep the Internet 'free and open'

Top Republican lawmakers say Obama is trying to overregulate Internet companies, which have helped drive the American economy.

“The Obama administration now wants to threaten that progress by imposing rules written in the 1930s to cover public utilities to now regulate the Internet,” said House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Bakersfield, who has long called for less government regulation of technology. “The Internet has been, and needs to remain, free and open. The House will continue to resist the administration’s attempts to make it anything else.”

Read More

Senator Ted Cruz — The Republicans' Modern Day Joe McCarthy — Calls Net Neutrality 'Obamacare for the Internet’

Ted Cruz's tweets suggests he doesn't have the slightest idea of what net neutrality is.

Joe McCarthy (left): McCarthy is the thoroughly discredited senator who terrorized
America with his "communists are everywhere" delusions. Ted Cruz: He not only
looks like McCarthy, but acts as strange and uninformed as McCarthy. (Adapted by
DonkeyHotey from Wikimedia/Gage Skidmore)

By Jane C. Timm
President Obama on Monday came out with a full-throated defense of so-called net neutrality, advocating for new rules that would keep the Internet free from the influence of broadband companies seeking to control customers’ speed and access. But not everyone is a fan of Obama’s stand.

“ ‘Net Neutrality’ is Obamacare for the Internet,” Sen. Ted Cruz tweeted Monday in response to the president’s announcement. “The Internet should not operate at the speed of government.”

The Texas Republican’s tweeted criticism seems to betray an inherent misunderstanding of what net neutrality is. ”He’s searching desperately for a talking point,” says Free Press spokesman Timothy Karr. “He swung and he missed.”

Net neutrality advocates, meanwhile, were thrilled that Obama finally found his voice on an issue he has long pledged to support. ”The president who promised to take a back seat to no one on Net Neutrality has finally gotten in the driver’s seat. And he may have saved the Internet at the moment it was in the greatest jeopardy,” said Craig Aaron, president and CEO of the pro-net neutrality advocacy group Free Press, in a statement.

Read More

Cable Stocks Fall Sharply After Obama Backs Net Neutrality: Investors Were Hoping To Make A Killing From Multi-Tier Charges

Illustration by DonkeyHotey.

By Ken Sweet
Cable company stocks fell sharply Monday after President Obama called for the Federal Communications Commission to reclassify Internet access as a utility.

If the FCC were to approve the White House's recommendations, the Internet would be regulated like other utilities such as electricity, water and telephone services. The White House is calling for an "explicit ban" on deals between broadband Internet providers and online services like Netflix, Amazon or YouTube to move their content faster, a potential new source of revenue for cable companies.

While the FCC is an independent agency, Obama's statement could put political pressure on FCC commissioners and aligns the White House with Internet activists who warn against the creation of so-called Internet "fast lanes." Internet activists have been calling for the FCC to reclassify the Internet as a public utility under Title II of the 1934 Communications Act, which is what Obama has called for.

Read More

Obama Pressures FCC for Strong Net Neutrality Rules

On July 23, 2014, hundreds of Free Press activists rallied for REAL Net Neutrality on President Obama's
motorcade route as he attended a big fundraiser in the Hancock Park neighborhood of Los Angeles. (Photo
by Free Press)

By Alina Selyukh
U.S. President Barack Obama on Monday pressured the federal communications regulator to toughen its planned Internet traffic rules, saying higher-fee "fast lanes" should be banned and Internet providers should be overseen more like public utilities are.

Obama's detailed position on the issue of "net neutrality," a platform in his presidential campaign in 2008, represented a rare step by the White House into the policy-setting of an independent agency.

It came after nearly 4 million comments flooded the Federal Communications Commission after Chairman Tom Wheeler formally proposed new Internet traffic rules in May.

Read More

Controversial Internet Tax Canceled in Hungary After Mass Protest — Government Wanted To Charge By Amount of Traffic

Prime Minister Viktor Orban scraps proposed tax after large-scale anti-government protests rock Budapest. Government wanted to levy a fee on each gigabyte of internet data transferred.

Tens of thousands of Hungarians marched over the Danube River this week, protesting a proposed tax on Internet usage. (Photo: Janos Marjai/European Pressphoto Agency)

By Deirdre Fulton
Mass protests in Budapest this week against a proposed Internet usage tax apparently worked: Hungary's Prime Minister Viktor Orban said Friday that his government would scrap the tax, at least for now.

"We are not Communists, we don’t govern against the people," Mr. Orban said in his regular weekly interview on Hungarian radio. "We govern together with the people. So this tax, in this form, cannot be introduced."

Protest organizers, who said the levy not only imposed a financial burden but threatened to restrict free speech, silence dissent, and access to information, celebrated the U-turn. "Mr. Orban admitted his defeat," they said in a statement. "We are the people! And we the people have the right to rule the country." A victory rally is planned for Friday evening.

The BBC's Nick Thorpe, writing from Budapest, noted that "Orban does not often back down, but he has done so on this occasion for several reasons."

For one thing, the proposed tax of about 61 cents per gigabyte of data managed to unify those who are opposed to Orban and his ruling Fidesz party, which has been accused of authoritarian impulses. The reasons for the tax were poorly communicated, while opposition was well-organized. And Orban's line about Communists, Thorpe said, is "a sign that growing comparisons between Fidesz and the old Hungarian Socialist Workers' Party are hitting the mark."

"What happens next?" Thorpe wondered. "Mr. Orban's decision to cancel the tax deprives his opponents of a valuable rallying cry. The big question for them will be whether they can use the momentum of two big rallies to create new forms of opposition to Fidesz. They have proven that he can be defeated. Mr. Orban has proven that he is more flexible than many analysts give him credit
for."

Reprinted with permission from Common Dreams.

The Internet Has A 'Shut Off Button': The NSA Caused Web Blackout in Syria, Not the Syrian Government — Says NSA Whistleblower

By Spencer Ackerman
The surveillance whistleblower Edward Snowden has alleged that a 2012 incident that took Syria’s internet offline was caused by a National Security Agency blunder.

In an interview with Wired magazine, Snowden said the elite NSA hacking unit, called Tailored Access Operations, accidentally cut off Syria’s internet while attempting to infiltrate it.

The unit allegedly attempted to install an exploit in the hardware of Syria’s main internet service provider that would have provided NSA with mass access to internet usage, communications and patterns in Syria, where a civil war was developing into an Islamist insurgency, destabilising the Middle East.

Instead of gaining mass visibility into the internet habits of Syrians, Snowden alleged, a glitch took Syria offline.

On 29 November 2012, the analysis firm Renesys reported that 92% of the routed networks providing internet connectivity for Syria, 77 of them, had gone dark.

At the time, the outage was widely reported, including by the Guardian, to have been at the instigation of the Syrian government, in order to destabilise opposition groups.

Read More

Your City Wants to Offer Faster and Cheaper Net Service to Citizens? — For-Profit ISPs Are Trying to Prevent That

Corporate Internet providers would rather kill than
let citizens get access to fast and cheap Internet.
(Photo by greyloch)

By Mark Karlin
If you want to know what a difference a municipally owned internet service can make, just look to Chattanooga, Tennessee. In an article on CNNMoney entitled, "Chattanooga's super-fast publicly owned Internet," journalist James O'Toole describes how Chattanooga is providing the gold standard of internet access, while commercial Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are leaving consumers in the dust, in terms of speed and service:

Chattanooga, Tenn., may not be the first place that springs to mind when it comes to cutting-edge technology. But thanks to its ultra-high-speed Internet, the city has established itself as a center for innovation -- and an encouraging example for those frustrated with slow speeds and high costs from private broadband providers.

Chattanooga rolled out a fiber-optic network a few years ago that now offers speeds of up to 1000 Megabits per second, or 1 gigabit, for just $70 a month. A cheaper 100 Megabit plan costs $58 per month. Even the slower plan is still light-years ahead of the average U.S. connection speed, which stood at 9.8 megabits per second as of late last year, according to Akamai Technologies.

"It's really altered how we think of ourselves as a city," said Chattanooga Mayor Andy Berke. "We're a midsized, southern city -- for us to be at the front of the technological curve rather than at the tail end is a real achievement."

As federal officials find themselves at the center of controversy over net neutrality and the regulation of private internet service; providers; like Comcast, Time Warner Cable, Chattanooga offers an alternative model for keeping people connected. A city-owned agency, the Electric Power Board, runs its own network, offering higher-speed service than any of its private-sector competitors can manage.

A November 2013 SlashGear.com article states bluntly: "The vast majority of the US is left with some of the slowest broadband internet speeds in the world. The US ranks 31 on the list of speediest broadband countries according to Speedtest.net."

So why aren't municipalities across the nation setting up wireless systems for the 21st century at affordable prices - networks that will, as in Chattanooga’s case, also induce businesses to locate in municipalities with cutting-edge internet?

The answer, of course, is that corporate ISPs are legally stifling public competition. Their goal is to make a bigger profit by creating monopolies with mediocre speeds and high monthly charges. In an article, "ISP lobby has already won limits on public broadband in 20 states,"  arstechnica.com explains.

Read More