Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Mr Maxwell Hogan Lovells Net Neutrality

491 views

Published on

Published in: Technology, Business
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Mr Maxwell Hogan Lovells Net Neutrality

  1. 1. Net neutrality – a quick U.S. update Digiworld Summit – Transatlantic Policy Forum 16 November 2011 Winston Maxwell (Paris) and Mark Brennan (Washington DC)
  2. 2. FCC's Open Internet Rules 25 FCC Rcd 17905 (2010) <ul><li>Starts applying on November 20, 2011 </li></ul><ul><li>Four core principles: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Transparency </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No Blocking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No Unreasonable Discrimination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reasonable Network Management </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Applies to fixed and mobile providers, but m obile operators subject to lighter &quot;no blocking&quot; rule, and exempt from &quot;no unreasonable discrimination&quot; rule </li></ul>
  3. 3. Open Internet Rules (cont’d) <ul><li>Transparency : publicly disclose accurate information about network management practices, performance, and commercial terms “sufficient for consumers to make informed choices regarding use of such services and for content, application, service, and device providers to develop, market, and maintain Internet offerings.” </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Examples: congestion management practices, restrictions on the types of devices and any related approval procedures, explanations behind usage-based fees. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FCC released guidance www.fcc.gov/document/advisory-guidance-open-internet-transparency-rule </li></ul></ul><ul><li>No blocking : fixed providers prohibited from blocking lawful content, applications, services, or nonharmful devices, subject to reasonable network management (“degrading” is also prohibited). </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobile operators may not block (1) lawful websites and (2) applications that compete with the provider’s voice or video telephony services (subject to reasonable network management) </li></ul></ul>
  4. 4. Open Internet Rules (cont’d) <ul><li>No unreasonable discrimination : fixed providers prohibited from unreasonably discriminating in transmitting lawful network traffic, subject to reasonable network management. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Paid prioritization not prohibited, but a rebuttable presumption that it will constitute unreasonable discrimination </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mobile operators not subject to &quot;no unreasonable discrimination&quot; rule </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Reasonable network management : appropriate and tailored to achieving a legitimate network management purpose, taking into account the particular network architecture and technology. Examples include: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensuring network security and integrity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Addressing unwanted traffic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reducing or mitigating the effects of congestion </li></ul></ul><ul><li>&quot;Specialized services&quot; excluded from rules, but subject to monitoring to ensure no indirect frustration of open internet rules </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Southern Company Services (an electric utility affiliate) recently asked the FCC to clarify or reconsider an issue related to “specialized services” in connection with smart grid </li></ul></ul>
  5. 5. Challenges <ul><li>Court Challenges </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Verizon and MetroPCS filed petitions for review in the D.C. Circuit in January 2011, but those petitions were dismissed as premature because the rules had not yet been published in the Federal Register. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Rules published on September 23, 2011 (effective November 20, 2011). </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Verizon, Free Press, and other groups have filed petitions for review, and the D.C. Circuit will hear the consolidated case. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Relief is requested on the grounds the decision (1) exceeds the FCC’s statutory authority; (2) is arbitrary, capricious, and an abuse of discretion with the federal Administrative Procedure Act; (3) conflicts with a constitutional right; and (4) is otherwise contrary to law. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>FCC claims jurisdiction this time based on Section 706, which permits FCC to take action if it finds that broadband services are not deployed in a timely manner </li></ul></ul>
  6. 6. Challenges (cont’d) <ul><li>Legislative Challenges </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Republican-led House of Representatives passed a resolution disapproving the rules. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Democrat-led Senate rejected a similar resolution. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>President Obama has pledged to veto resolutions that would overturn the decision. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Other bills have been introduced this year that would address net neutrality issues, but none have advanced far or are expected to pass before this Congress recesses at the end of 2011. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>HR 166 would require market analysis, evidence of market failure, then proportionate remedies </li></ul></ul></ul>
  7. 7. Other developments <ul><li>Comcast/NBC U merger </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comcast agreed to seven year non-discrimination rule for upstream video services </li></ul></ul><ul><li>American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Federally funded broadband projects must accept &quot;open internet&quot; principles </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Level 3/Comcast peering dispute </li></ul><ul><li>Fight against online infringement </li></ul><ul><ul><li>July 2011 MOU: US ISPs agree to take &quot;mitigation measures&quot; (eg bandwidth throttling) against repeat infringers </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Protect IP bill and similar House bill would permit attorney general to request ISPs to block rogue websites </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Comcast and AT&T metered data plans (150 or 250 GB/mth usage caps) </li></ul><ul><li>Canadian guidelines on network management practice </li></ul>
  8. 8. www.hoganlovells.com Hogan Lovells has offices in: Abu Dhabi Alicante Amsterdam Baltimore Beijing Berlin Brussels Budapest* Caracas Colorado Springs Denver Dubai Dusseldorf Frankfurt Hamburg Hanoi Ho Chi Minh City Hong Kong Houston Jeddah* London Los Angeles Madrid Miami Milan Moscow Munich New York Northern Virginia Paris Philadelphia Prague Riyadh* Rome San Francisco Shanghai Silicon Valley Singapore Tokyo Ulaanbaatar Warsaw Washington DC Zagreb* &quot;Hogan Lovells&quot; or the &quot;firm&quot; is an international legal practice that includes Hogan Lovells International LLP, Hogan Lovells US LLP and their affiliated businesses.   The word &quot;partner&quot; is used to refer to a member of Hogan Lovells International LLP or a partner of Hogan Lovells US LLP, or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications, and to a partner, member, employee or consultant in any of their affiliated businesses who has equivalent standing. Where case studies are included, results achieved do not guarantee similar outcomes for other clients. Attorney Advertising.   For more information see www.hoganlovells.com. © Hogan Lovells 2011. All rights reserved. * Associated offices

×