http://daniel.haxx.se/http2/http2-v1.7.pdf
From the article: “The protocol is only useful for browsers and big services” This is sort of true. One of the primary drivers behind the
http2 development is the fixing of HTTP pipelining. If your use case originally didn't have any need for pipelining then chances are http2 won't do a lot of good for you.
This may be a big issue, and may impact net neutrality. You get better performance if your stuff is inside a pipe from a Big Service. This makes Google look good. It also increases the relative benefit of running everything through a content delivery service.
On 14 November 2014, the Italian Presidency presented amendments to the Telecommunications package for comment by the Member State delegations. We are hereby making the document and its annexes publicly available (Note and addendum). These documents show that the Italian Presidency is now back-pedalling on meaningful net neutrality protections – having previously made some much more meaningful and positive suggestions. It presented a “principles-based approach” to the Member States “in order not to inhibit innovation and to avoid” having an outdated regulation in the future. In reality, all the text would do is add confusion for freedom of communication and online innovation.
The Internet is great because it belongs to all of us equally, providing a level playing field that has fuelled economic development and innovation while enabling free expression. The web as we know it today is founded on the principle of 'Net Neutrality' -- the idea that data, no matter who it is coming from or who is receiving it, should be given the same priority by Internet Service Providers.
Two months have passed since the European Parliament adopted amendments to enshrine net neutrality in EU law at the beginning of April 2014. The Telecoms Single Market proposal is now being reviewed by the Council (Member States) of the EU. Rather than sitting back and waiting for the Council to carry out its work, Vice President of the Commission Neelie Kroes has been working hard to dissuade Council members from supporting net neutrality, something she was not able to stop in the European Parliament despite her (sometimes highly dubious) tactics.
The former cable and wireless industry lobbyist Tom Wheeler is re-writing rules in favor of the telecom giants – not you, me or the internet. Here's what you can do to stop him
Brazil’s Congress is days away from voting on Marco Civil, the country’s first major Internet legislation, and the big issue at stake is net neutrality.
For anyone remotely connected to technology, the idea that net neutrality is an unabashed good seems incontrovertible, and one of the most popular examples of why it matters is Netflix.
In the coming days, committees of the European Parliament will decide the fate of Net neutrality in Europe. Ahead of European elections, our representatives cannot miss this opportunity to truly defend EU citizens' rights, protect communications online and thus guarantee freedom of expression and information throughout Europe.
he only people who remain completely committed to network neutrality and energized to defend it are consumer groups and average Americans who love the Internet. On Reddit, Facebook, and Twitter, people are asking how to reverse the decision and preserve Internet freedom. In Washington, though, having the American public on your side might not be enough to stare down the hundreds of telecom and cable lobbyists. That’s where the consumer groups come in. For many years, organizations like Free Press, the New America Foundation’s Open Technology Institute, Public Knowledge, and others have been active on this issue. (Disclosure: I’m affiliated with or have donated to all of them.) Now, they need to rebuild the coalition with tech companies serving millions of network neutrality supporters and organize the public for a fight—something that’s possible so long as Verizon and AT&T don’t exercise their newfound right to block any website they choose.
Net neutrality is a dead man walking. The execution date isn’t set, but it could be days, or months (at best). And since net neutrality is the principle forbidding huge telecommunications companies from treating users, websites, or apps differently — say, by letting some work better than others over their pipes — the dead man walking isn’t some abstract or far-removed principle just for wonks: It affects the internet as we all know it.
Once upon a time, companies like AT&T, Comcast, Verizon, and others declared a war on the internet’s foundational principle: that its networks should be “neutral” and users don’t need anyone’s permission to invent, create, communicate, broadcast, or share online. The neutral and level playing field provided by permissionless innovation has empowered all of us with the freedom to express ourselves and innovate online without having to seek the permission of a remote telecom executive.
Neelie Kroes has always championed and guaranteed net neutrality in Europe. But critics argue that her definition of net neutrality is diametrically opposite to the standard industry definition and understanding of the term. In short, by guaranteeing net neutrality, Neelie Kroes will eliminate net neutrality.
Amid strong criticisms both inside and outside the European Commission, Neelie Kroes decided to rush the adoption of her draft telecom legislation, which includes very controversial anti-Net neutrality proposals. Commissioner Kroes, who spent the whole legislature denying the very need for legislative action on the topic, is now rushing a flawed lobby-driven text, in complete disrespect of European citizens. The ball is now in the hands of the European Parliament, just months ahead of upcoming elections.
Google interdit aux clients de ses offres FTTH d'héberger des serveurs.
« La pornographie est pensée comme un incubateur pour les outils de contrôle et ne représente que l’un des premiers maillons de la chaîne. »
[...]
L’idée envisagée par un Internet qu’on nomme volontiers à deux vitesses est une bombe à retardement, une mise à mort du concept fondamentalement démocratique qui soutient le réseau et, enfin, le règne annoncé des entreprises pouvant mettre la main à la poche pour favoriser leur contenu plutôt que celui de leurs concurrents. Contre la mise en place d’une telle idée se dressent aujourd’hui en France seulement deux entités : d’un côté, l’Etat qu’on n’a vu que peu compétent quand il a été question du numérique ; de l’autre, le Conseil National du Numérique. Cet organisme a d’ailleurs récemment proposé au gouvernement, dont il dépend, d’inscrire la neutralité d’Internet dans la loi.
For some months now, there have been intense discussions on the threats raised by the upcoming World Conference on International Telecommunications (WCIT). In December, the 193 Member States of the International Telecommunication Union (ITU), an agency of the United Nations, will gather in Dubaï for this important conference aimed at amending the ITU's founding treaty, the "International Telecommunication Regulations" (ITRs).
La Quadrature du Net publishes its non-answer to the EU body of telecoms regulators' (BEREC) consultation on "specific aspects of transparency, trafic management and switching in an open Internet". It is not time for yet-another consultation on the EU Commission's failed "wait-and-see" policy aimed at letting telecom operators take control of the Internet by discriminating communications. The only way to protect a free Internet as well as freedoms and innovation online is to clearly enact and protect Net Neutrality in EU law.
All elements are on the table now:
The findings of Respect My Net are confirmed by BEREC's own study: Telecoms operators all around the EU restrict their users' communication, breaking the fundamental principles of the free and open internet while restricting freedoms online and innovation.
There is clear evidence that national regulators do not have the power to investigate and sanction such restrictions. The so-called "transparency" provisions of the Telecoms Package won't change anything.
«Libertarians make the case: net neutrality is unconstitutional
Argue that forcing ISPs to carry all traffic infringes on freedom of speech.
by Cyrus Farivar - July 24 2012, 7:58pm CEST
GOVERNMENT LAWSUITS
30
The 2011 FCC Order established net neutrality as a matter of national policy. Since, companies like Verizon have been trying to fight it.
Taramisu
A group of well-known libertarian organizations has filed an amicus brief (PDF) to the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in support of the plaintiff in the Verizon v. Federal Communications Commission case. Verizon filed its own brief earlier this month.
In the brief, TechFreedom, The Competitive Enterprise Institute, The Free State Foundation, and the Cato Institute argue that the last year’s FCC net neutrality order “Preserving the Open Internet” (PDF), which took effect in November 2011, violates the First and Fifth Amendments, and that the FCC lacks jurisdictional authority to implement such a rule.
Specifically, the groups say that compelling private companies to “speak,” by requiring them to carry all traffic across their networks, instead of allowing them to discriminate as they see fit, violates the principle of freedom of speech.
“When you allow the government to say that a private operator has to treat all speech equally and cannot refuse to carry some speech—our view is the First Amendment jurisprudence [stipulates] that the government can’t compel a speaker,” said Randolph May, in a call with Ars on Tuesday morning. May is president of the Free State Foundation; he is also an attorney, law professor, and former associate general counsel at the FCC.
Further, the groups argue, citing case law, the government must show immediate, real harm, rather than theoretical or possible harm.
“There isn’t a record to support suppression of speech here,” added Berin Szoka, also an attorney and president of TechFreedom, who spoke with Ars on Tuesday. “You could imagine a world where net neutrality violations have been frequent. The government would have a much stronger argument that they have a substantial or a compelling interest. That’s not the world that we live in.”
"Father of the Internet" calls this argument "flawed"
The FCC, of course, has previously argued that its actions are aimed at protecting consumers from being able to access whatever service they want over their home Internet connections.
Skeptical Vint Cerf is skeptical.
Joi Ito
Net neutrality advocates, like Vint Cerf, the co-inventor of the TCP/IP protocol (and often dubbed a “father of the Internet”), e-mailed Ars to say that he agreed and that the premise of the amicus brief was “fundamentally flawed.”
“Editing the Internet in the way this brief suggests is a gross violation of the First Amendment rights of the customers, because there is not much competitive choice of Internet access providers—the FCC is to be credited for their effort to preserve the rights of citizens.”
Meanwhile, the groups also argue that the FCC Order is in violation of the Fifth Amendment, which prevents the government from, among other things, taking private property for public use, “without just compensation.” They also say that if the FCC order stands, “content providers will enjoy a nearly unqualified right to occupy the cables and wires that constitute broadband networks.”
This appears to be a fairly broad reading of the Fifth Amendment, given that private data transiting through a private cable isn’t quite the same thing as the government taking private property to use for the public good.
The final argument that the libertarian groups put forward is that the FCC lacks regulatory authority, because Congress had not specifically authorized the agency to claim “ancillary authority,” adding ominously at the end of its brief: “If the FCC can invent authority to regulate the Internet today, there is no limit to what it might do tomorrow.”»