India - 600,000 Comments so far on Differential Pricing Regulation

BGR reports that India's "Telecom regulator TRAI has received around six lakh [i.e. 600,0000] comments on its consultation paper over ‘Differential Pricing for Data Services’ [here]— one of the important issues under net neutrality principles.

“Till Thursday, Trai received about 540,000 comments. These comments have suddenly come and mostly around Facebook’s Free Basics service [see "FB CEO: We Support Net Neutrality (w/ Zero Rating" - here]. Today comments would have crossed six lakh,” an official source told PTI. The last date for comments on the consultation paper is December 30 and for counter comments is January 7."

TRAI's questions to the public are: 

1. Should the TSPs be allowed to have differential pricing for data usage for accessing different websites, applications or platforms?
    
2. If differential pricing for data usage is permitted, what measures should be adopted to ensure that the principles of nondiscrimination, transparency, affordable internet access, competition and market entry and innovation are addressed?
    
3. Are there alternative methods/technologies/business models, other than differentiated tariff plans, available to achieve the objective of providing free internet access to the consumers? If yes, please suggest/describe these methods/technologies/business models. Also, describe the potential benefits and disadvantages associated with such methods/technologies/business models?
    
4. Is there any other issue that should be considered in the present consultation on differential pricing for data services?

See "TRAI receives 6 lakh comments on second net neutrality paper so far" - here.

BITAG Recommends Differentiated Treatment Practices

BITAG (Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group - see "Plans for a New Forum: Broadband Internet Technical Advisory Group"- here) announced the ".. publication of its technical report on the subject of Differentiated Treatment of Internet Traffic ..This report touches on a broad range of questions associated with differentiation, but is not intended to address or analyze the economic, legal, regulatory, or public policy issues that the differentiated treatment of Internet access service traffic may raise, focusing instead on the technical issues.

.. network operators make many exceptions to FIFO, using the packet header information to classify packets into flows and treating those flows differently, for example rearranging the order or the timing with which packets are sent, or sending them along different network paths". 

Among the contributors and reviewers to the report (see full list below), is Sandvine's CTO, Don Bowman - See - "Sandvine, Internet Leaders Achieve Consensus on Traffic Differentiation" - here.
"Observations:

• TCP causes recurring momentary congestion. 
• A nominal level of packet discard is normal. 
• The absence of differentiation does not imply comparable behavior among applications. Differentiated treatment can produce a net improvement in Quality of Experience (QoE). 
• Access technologies differ in their capabilities and characteristics. 
• Security of traffic has at times been downgraded to facilitate differentiation techniques. 

Recommendations:

• Network operators should disclose information on differential treatment of traffic. 
• Network operators and ASPs should be encouraged to implement efficient and adaptive network resource management practices. 
• Quality of Service metrics should be interpreted in the context of Quality of Experience. 
• Network operators should not downgrade, interfere with, or block user selected security in order to apply differentiated treatment". 

See "BITAG Publishes Report: Differentiated Treatment of Internet Traffic" - here.

Document Contributors and Reviewers: - Fred Baker, Cisco - Steven Bauer, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - Richard Bennett, American Enterprise Institute - Don Bowman, Sandvine - Lily Chen, Verizon - kc claffy, University of California, San Diego; Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) - David Clark, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) - David Cooper, Level 3 - Amogh Dhamdhere, University of California, San Diego; Center for Applied Internet Data Analysis (CAIDA) - Amie Elcan, CenturyLink - Michael Fargano, CenturyLink - Nick Feamster, Princeton University - Joseph Lorenzo Hall, Center for Democracy & Technology (CDT) - Kevin Kleinsmith, Union Wireless - Ken Ko, ADTRAN - Gary Langille, EchoStar - Matt Larsen, Vistabeam - Jason Livingood, Comcast - Patrick McManus, Mozilla - Chris Morrow, Google - Barbara Stark, AT&T - Matthew Tooley, National Cable and Telecommunications Association (NCTA) - Jason Weil, Time Warner Cable - Greg White, CableLabs - David Winner, Charter Communication

India's Regulator Demands Data Usage Transparency

India's regulator, TRAI, takes another step towards transparency and bill shock prevention, in addition to the other Net Neutrality laws (see "India Planned Net Neutrality Laws" - here).

Telecom Lead reports that the "Telecom Regularoty Authority of India today said Indian telecom service providers should share data usage related information with their subscribers on regular basis".

See "TELECOM CONSUMERS PROTECTION (EIGHTH AMENDMENT) REGULATIONS, 2015 (5 OF 2015)" - here.

"Indian telecoms such as Vodafone India, Bharti Airtel, Idea Cellular, Reliance Communications, Tata Docomo, Aircel, Uninor, MTS India, Videocon Telecom, MTNL and BSNL must issue notices in form of USSD or SMS about data usage to its customers, TRAI said in its Telecom Consumers Protection (Eighth Amendment) Regulations, 2015.

TRAI said it received several complaints from mobile Internet consumers regarding non-availability of information relating to the amount of data used during a data session .. Mobile network operators now need to send information about the usage to data users at every 10 MB of data consumption except customers opting for special schemes like add-on packs, combo offers and others. The consumers are to be provided with an option to opt out if they do not desire to receive such information.

.. Further the consumer shall be informed about the details of tariff applicable after exhausting the data limit, when the data limit reaches 90 percent or the data balance available in the account reaches 10MB .. Telecom operators also need to send an alert to international roaming customer cautioning the person to deactivate data service if one does not intend to use data services.

TRAI ordered the service providers to implement the same by November 1 this year". 

See "TRAI wants telecoms to share data usage info with subscribers" - here.

[UK]:"Unlike some countries", All ISPs Voluntary Signed for the Net Neutrality Code

The Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG) announced that "all of the UK’s leading Internet Service Providers (ISPs) have now signed up to a voluntary Code of  Practice in support of the Open Internet.

The Open Internet Code [here] was launched in 2012, building on previous work on the transparency of traffic management. EE, Virgin Media and Vodafone have recently signed up to the Open Internet Code, meaning that all major ISPs, operating across both fixed and mobile networks, are now signatories.

Matthew Evans [pictured], CEO of the BSG which facilitated the code, said: “Unlike some countries where net neutrality has become a controversial topic for discussion, the UK benefits from a fiercely competitive market and high levels of transparency – which together offer the best assurance of an Open Internet. The Code now provides an even stronger and more effective foundation, whilst also allowing for an environment where new business models for internetbased services which benefit consumer choice can thrive.”

The signatories of the code are: BT, BSkyB, EE, KCOM, giffgaff, O2, Plusnet, TalkTalk, Tesco Mobile, Three, Virgin Media and Vodafone. 

By agreeing to the code, they confirm that they will:

1. Ensure that full and open internet access products, with no blocked services, will be the norm within their portfolio of products.
    
2. Provide greater transparency in instances where certain classes of legal content,applications and/or services are unavailable on a product. These products will not be marketed as “internet access” and signatories will be obliged to ensure that any restrictions are clearly communicated to consumers.
    
3. Not target and degrade the content or applications of specific providers.Content providers are able to raise potential cases of targeted and negative discrimination with ISPs. If they are not satisfactorily resolved, these issues will be lodged with the BSG  who will share them with Ofcom and government. This initiative, which the BSG was asked to undertake on behalf of the Government, builds on the transparency code of practice published in 2011 which ensures that clear, understandable and comparable information on traffic management practices is available to consumers.

See "Remaining ISPs commit to the UK’s Open Internet Code" - here.

T-Mobile US: Speed Tests Look too Good ?

It turns our that T-Mobile spent some efforts in service management facilities to detect when a customer accesses speed tests sites, so a speed limit (for customers exceeding their data plan cap) could be temporary removed, and "non-accurate" performance information would be shown!

The Federal Communications Commission announced that T-Mobile US has ".. agreed to take steps to ensure that customers who run mobile speed tests on the carrier’s network will receive accurate information about the speed of their broadband Internet connection, even when they are subject to speed reductions pursuant to their data plans.

[Related post - "T-Mobile to Shape Misusage Over LTE" - here]

T-Mobile offers several data plans that feature a designated allotment of high-speed data. After a customer uses the monthly high-speed data allotment, that customer will receive data at a reduced speed limited to either 128 kbps or 64 kbps, depending on the customer’s data plan, for the remainder of the monthly billing cycle [here]. 

These speed reductions are specified in T-Mobile’s agreements with customers,and T-Mobile customers do not receive overage charges for exceeding their data caps. In June, T-Mobile began exempting the use of certain speed test applications, which allow consumers to measure the speed of their Internet connection, from customers’ monthly high-speed data allotments.

OOKLA's SpeedTest Report - mobile carriers, US, November 2014 data

Currently, customers who have their speeds reduced after exceeding their monthly high-speed data cap cannot easily understand the results of exempted speed tests. When these customers run speed tests that T-Mobile has exempted from data caps, they receive information about T-Mobile’s full network speed,and not the actual reduced speed available to these customers at that time. 

The FCC was concerned thatthis could cause confusion for consumers and prevent them from obtaining information relevant to their use of T-Mobile services. The FCC and T-Mobile have agreed that T-Mobile will begin implementing the agreement immediately and will fully implement it within 60 days.

See "T-Mobile To Improve Disclosures for Consumers Using Mobile Speed Tests"- here.

FTC Sues AT&T for Shaping Unlimited Subscribers

Do you remember this move by AT&T, back in 2011 -  "AT&T to Throttle Top 5% of Unlimited Subscribers" - here?

Here comes the consumer response.

The Federal Trade Commission (FTC) announced that  it has "..filed a federal court complaint against AT&T Mobility, LLC, charging that the company has misled millions of its smartphone customers by charging them for “unlimited” data plans while reducing their data speeds, in some cases by nearly 90 percent.

The FTC’s complaint alleges that the company failed to adequately disclose to its customers on unlimited data plans that, if they reach a certain amount of data use in a given billing cycle, AT&T reduces – or “throttles” – their data speeds to the point that many common mobile phone applications – like web browsing, GPS navigation and watching streaming video – become difficult or nearly impossible to use.

..The FTC alleges that AT&T, despite its unequivocal promises of unlimited data, began throttling data speeds in 2011 for its unlimited data plan customers after they used as little as 2 gigabytes of data in a billing period. According to the complaint, the throttling program has been severe, often resulting in speed reductions of 80 to 90 percent for affected users. Thus far, according to the FTC, AT&T has throttled at least 3.5 million unique customers a total of more than 25 million times".

Related post - "AT&T: 1M Subscribers Switched from Unlimited to UBB in Q1" - here.

See "FTC Says AT&T Has Misled Millions of Consumers with ‘Unlimited’ Data Promises" - here.

The FCC Reminds ISPs: Transparency Rule is in Full Force

The recent debate around the delivery of Netflix traffic in the US [see "Verizon vs. Netflix on Congestion - It is NOT Us!" - here and "Netflix - Speed to Comcast Customers Continue to Surge" - here], creating confusing among consumers, probably led the FCC to remind ISPs that the Open Internet (Net Neutrality) rules (or some of them) are still in effect.

The FCC issues a public notice, with an enforcement advisory (here), saying that "Providers of broadband Internet access services must disclose accurate information about their service offerings and make this information accessible to the public. This requirement, known as the Open Internet Transparency Rule, has been in full force and effect since 2011 [see "FCC's Net Neutrality Rules Made Official; Start on Nov. 20" - here].

..The Transparency Rule requires every fixed and mobile broadband Internet access provider to “publicly disclose accurate information regarding the network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of its broadband Internet access services 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". 

Accuracy is the bedrock of the Transparency Rule. Under the rule, all disclosures that broadband Internet access providers make about their network management practices, performance, and commercial terms of broadband services must be accurate"

FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler [pictured] said (here): “Consumers deserve to get the broadband service they pay for. After today, no broadband provider can claim they didn’t know we were watching to see that they disclose accurate information about the services they provide. The FCC’s transparency rule requires that consumers get the information they need to make informed choices about the broadband services they purchase. We expect providers to be fully transparent about the details of their services, and we will hold them accountable if they fall down on this obligation to consumers”

See "FCC to ISPs: Inaccurate Disclosures Violate Transparency Rule" - here.

FCC: New Net Neutrality? Just be "Commercially Reasonable"

  

After several days of conflicting new of the future of Net Neutrality in the US, FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler [pictured] decided to "Set the Record Straight", in a post to the FCC official blog. the bottom line - "It is my intention to conclude this proceeding and have enforceable rules by the end of the year".

And the rules are:

1. That all ISPs must transparently disclose to their subscribers and users all relevant information as to the policies that govern their network;
    
2. That no legal content may be blocked; and
    
3. That ISPs may not act in a commercially unreasonable manner to harm the Internet, including favoring the traffic from an affiliated entity.

Good news to the DPI and Policy management vendors! (i guess that "reasonable traffic management" will remain as well).

On the same time, the "Chairman Wheeler is encouraging the public to share their views now. He intends to have rules of the road in place before the end of the year to protect consumers and entrepreneurs. He will be listening, and your comments will help inform the final rules" (see "FCC Establishes New Inbox for Open Internet Comments" - here and "Comments to the New FCC Net Neutrality" - here)

See "Setting the Record Straight on the FCC’s Open Internet Rules" - here.

EU: One Step Away from A Strong Net Neutrality Law

The EU voted for a new Net Neutrality law (for fixed and mobile services), that should end traffic blocking (here) or discrimination. However, there are some exceptions, including the ability to provide high-quality services. This is not final yet, and the law has to be approved by the leaders of the EU countries.

"Internet access providers would be barred from blocking or slowing down selected services for economic or other reasons by the latest draft EU “telecoms package” legislation voted by Parliament on Thursday .. MEPs want clear rules to prevent internet access providers from promoting some services at the expense of others".

See also:

• EU: Traffic Management, Pay for QoS - are all fine! - here
• EU Tells Telcos to Wake-up! - here.

"Internet access providers would still be able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive “cloud” (data storage) applications, so long as these services are not supplied to "the detriment of the availability or quality of internet access services" offered to other companies or service suppliers

MEPs shortened the European Commission's list of “exceptional” cases in which internet access providers could still be entitled to block or slow down the internet. MEPs say these practices should be permitted only to enforce a court order, preserve network security or prevent temporary network congestion. If such "traffic management measures" are used, they must be "transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate" and "not be maintained longer than necessary", they add.

MEPs underline that internet access should be provided in accordance with the principle of "net neutrality", which means that all internet traffic is treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independently of its sender, recipient, type, content, device, service or application.
See "Ensure open access for internet service suppliers and ban roaming fees, say MEPs" - here.

FCC: The Next Gen Net Neutrality

The FCC's had to do something after losing the Net Neutrality case to Verizon and the immediate effects it had (see related posts below).

Chairman Tom Wheeler [pictured], presented a new set of Net Neutrality rules:

"In its Verizon v. FCC decision, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuitinvited the Commission to act to preserve a free and open Internet. I intend to accept that invitation by proposing rules that will meet the court’s test for preventing improper blocking of and discrimination among Internet traffic, ensuring genuine transparency in how Internet Service Providers manage traffic, and enhancing competition. Preserving the Internet as an open platform for innovation and expression while providing certainty and predictability in the marketplace is an important responsibility of this agency". 

Related posts:

• Netflix: "Unfortunately, Verizon successfully challenged the U.S. net neutrality rules"  - here
• The Post-Net Neutrality Era - Does Verizon Shape Netflix and Amazon?  - here
• Netflix Reports Slower Speeds for Verizon - here

See "Statement by FCC Chairman Tom Wheeler on the FCC's Open Internet Rules" - here.

Israel: Carriers Must Disclose Broadband CIR

A new level of transparency is now required from the network providers in Israel. This relates to the two providers of broadband service - Bezeq (DSL) and HOT (Cable).

In Israel the internet service is separated into access and ISP functions, so the customer has to negotiate twice and get two bills. The new rules regulate the access providers only and as such do not mean much to the subscribers.

The Ministry of Communications published corrections to Bezeq and HOT's operator licenses (here and here, Hebrew) with a new section - "service advertising". The new section says that the service  advertisement has to be "real, accurate, fair and conforms to the license" and should include all the following items - maximum download rate, minimum download rate (available at all time to the subscriber) and the same for upload rates.

Both carriers should disclose the above, in writing, to all subscribers in 30 days.

[UK] Ofcom Research on Transparency of Traffic Management

The nice consumer guide issued by Ofcom on UK ISP's Traffic Management practices (see "[UK]: Ofcom Consumer Guide for Traffic Management" - here) was based on a research initiated by Ofcom.

Back in April Ofcom announced that "During 2013/14 Ofcom’s work on consumer information will address areas where we believe information provided by the market is insufficient. Examples of this will include: .. Traffic management practices: we are doing further work to consider the transparency of information on traffic management" (see "Ofcom Checks Traffic Management Practices" - here). More background in "Consumer research into the transparency of traffic management information provided by ISPs" - here.

The research was done by Kantar Media and published in "Transparency in internet traffic management"

The key findings related to traffic management are:

• Traffic management policies play little role in consumers’ ISP selection decisions, with only 1% claiming to have considered this for their fixed and/or mobile broadband purchases.
   
• There is a widespread lack of awareness about traffic management information. Roughly 1 in 10 internet consumers were aware of the term and meaning of traffic management, with less than a third (29%) being aware that traffic management processes were currently in use by internet providers.

• Once traffic management processes were explained 6% of internet users claimed they would consider traffic management in their future ISP selections, while the qualitative research indicated it would be of most interest to those who are currently experiencing internet related problems during peak times, particularly among households with multiple internet users
   
• Of the 9% of consumers who were aware of their ISP’s traffic management policy, 73% claimed that the information on traffic management provided was easy to understand.

[UK]: Ofcom Consumer Guide for Traffic Management

 

I am following the UK traffic management regulation since the early days of this blog (see "DPI Deployments - Part4: UK - Everybody is Doing it !" - here), as the UK ISPs are more transparent in their disclosure (voluntarily or by regulation - see "[UK]: Self Regulation doesn't Satisfy Ofcom; Publishes Minimum Disclosure Level" - here) compared to ISPs in other countries.

On top of all that, Ofcom published a new consumer guide, explaining consumers what is traffic management and exposing ISPs policies. They used the common comparing Broadband Traffic Management to motorways, serving variety of cars and

"With 46 million people in the UK having access to broadband and many using it for data heavy activities such as streaming and downloading, the internet is becoming increasingly busy.To ensure that networks operate efficiently, ISPs can restrict or ration traffic on their networks, or give priority to some types of traffic over others. This is known as ‘traffic management’.

"Each ISP has its own traffic management policy and so when choosing a provider you should check their policy meets your needs. Below you will find links to policies of the largest providers. If your ISP is not on this list, visit your provider’s website or speak to their customer services department: BT, Karoo, Plusnet, Sky, TalkTalk, Virgin Media (National and Cable), O2 (Home broadband and mobile broadband), EE (Handsets, broadband and mobile,broadband), Three, Vodafone."

See "New consumer guide on internet ‘traffic management’" - here.

EU: Traffic Management, Pay for QoS - are all fine!

  

The Internet is a best-effort based system, unless you pay extra. That's within the definition of an open and neutral network, as long as it is transparent and competitive, says Neelie Kroes (pictured), Vice-President of the European Commission responsible for the Digital Agenda.

"The fact is, the online data explosion means networks are getting congested. Internet Service Providers (ISPs) need to invest in network capacity to meet rising demand: and the right predictable regulatory framework will help them do so. But, at peak times, traffic management will continue to play a role (see "What does the EU Want to Know about Traffic Management?" - here).

.. and indeed it can be for legitimate and objective reasons; like separating time-critical traffic from the less urgent .. Many ISPs already do manage traffic in that way, avoiding congestion and ensuring quality. Likewise, many ISPs protect their customers from spam – something which has made a real positive difference, which I'd say most users find helpful, and are happy with".

"An open platform is built on competition, innovation transparency, and choice

• For example, if you've just bought a videoconferencing system, you'll probably also want an internet service that guarantees the right quality, end-to-end. If someone wants to pay extra for that, no EU rules should stand in their way; it's not my job to ban people from buying those services, nor to prevent people providing them. If you don't want to buy them that is also fine, and you should absolutely continue to benefit from the "best efforts internet".
   
• We must ensure transparency. Before you sign up to an internet contract, you want to know key details (see "EU: Net Neutrality is about Transparency; Favor of Parental Control" - here)
   
• People need choice in their internet services. A real choice, not a theoretical one. If they want to switch providers, they should be able to do so, without countless obstructions" (see "EU Tells Telcos to Wake-up!" - here)
   
• Innovation also needs competition. Services like Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) or messaging services – like Skype or WhatsApp – offer real innovation for consumers. But some ISPs deliberately degrade those services, or block them outright, simply to avoid the competition (see "EU: "It's not OK for Skype and other such services to be throttled" - here)

See "The EU, safeguarding the open internet for all" - here.

Ofcom Checks Traffic Management Practices

Some highlights from UK's regulator, Ofcom, 2013/4 work plan (here, below):

"During 2013/14 Ofcom’s work on consumer information will address areas where we believe information provided by the market is insufficient. Examples of this will include:

• Broadband speeds research: We will continue our work to ensure that consumers have adequate information on the actual fixed-line and mobile broadband speeds available, to help them make informed choices when selecting their broadband provider. We plan to publish research every six months, allowing consumers to see how broadband speeds vary across different providers, technologies, geographic areas and time periods.
   
• Traffic management practices: we are doing further work to consider the transparency of information on traffic management, including a more detailed review of traffic management practices, to ensure consumers are getting the information they need to make informed choices. This work has started only  recently, but may result in modifications to the current industry codes, or the integration of new content with the existing Ofcom sponsored codes such as that on broadband speeds. Any outcomes will be based on analysis of how well the existing industry code fulfils the intended goal of providing sufficient transparency for consumers to make informed decisions."

EU: Net Neutrality is about Transparency; Favor of Parental Control

 
Neelie KROES (pictured), VP of the European Commission, is a long time supporter of Net Neutrality (see "EU: 'It's not OK for Skype and other such services to be throttled'" - here).

In a recent post to her blog, she clarifies her position, and positions it around transparency, while allowing application-based tiered services:

  

"My general starting principle is that consumers should be free to make real choices about their internet subscription and online activity .. the public interest does not, in my view, preclude consumers from subscribing to more differentiated, limited internet offers, possibly for a lower price .. transparency and effective consumer control will nearly always be part of the solution"
  

".. On net neutrality, consumers need effective choice on the type of internet subscription they sign up to. That means real clarity, in non-technical language. About effective speeds in normal conditions, and about any restrictions imposed on traffic – and a realistic option to switch to a “full” service, without such restrictions, offered by their own provider or another. Ensuring consumer choice can mean constraints on others – in this case, an obligation for all internet service providers to offer an accessible “full” option to their customers. But such choice should also drive innovation and investment by internet providers, with benefits for all. I am preparing a Commission initiative to secure this effective consumer choice in Europe"

  

Ms Kroes also supports parental control service by ISPs - "Is there a public interest in parents having effective tools to control the material their young children can access online? Most would say yes, and the EU shares this view"

See "Internet and filtering applications: a tale of choice and revenues" - here.

What does Virgin's Media's "Up-to" Speed Mean?

Back in October 2011, UK's BCAP (Broadcast Committee of Advertising Practice) published a set of guidelines to "bring clarity to advertisers and consumers on the use of "unlimited" and "up to" speed claims in telecommunicatons and broadband ads" (here).

Apparently, when the term "up-to" is used in advertising,  it has double meaning ... as the next story shows.

Paul France (pictured) reports to cable.co.uk that "Virgin Media's traffic management policy has been given the all-clear by the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA) .. BT, Sky and a consumer challenged whether speed claims made by Virgin Media in two press ads and various pages on its website were misleading. The cable company used 'up to' figures to demonstrate the speed of its broadband service, but the complainants argued that these rates were inaccurate due to the advertiser's traffic management policy.

However, in its verdict, the ASA declared it was clear that the ads were referring to the maximum achievable speeds for each package. Ofcom reports and Virgin Media's own trials have proved that speeds of 30Mbps, 60Mbps and 100Mbps could be received on average by the "vast majority" of relevant customers". 

See "Virgin Media traffic management given all-clear by ASA" - here.

BEREC: “What regulators can do in order to promote net neutrality?”

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) found in May that "traffic management and differentiation practices are capable of being used for questionable purposes" (here).

Concluding that this is a bad thing, and Network Neutrality may help avoid such behavior, BEREC published several suggestions to regulators on how to promote Net Neutrality.

BEREC announced it has "..adopted an Overview and a Summary of BEREC’s approach to net neutrality at the BEREC Plenary on 6 December 2012 .. The Overview provides a concise description of three years of BEREC’s activities in the field of net neutrality. It summarizes briefly how the Internet works and presents findings related to retail and wholesale relationships and observations in the context of net neutrality. Furthermore, the paper presents what regulators can do in order to promote net neutrality. More specific explanations are available in the “Summary of BEREC positions on net neutrality”.

The "Overview of BEREC’s approach to net neutrality" (here) lists "What regulators can do in order to promote net neutrality": 

• Strengthening competition - Regulators have powers under the regulatory framework to promote effective competition through the imposition of price, access and non-discrimination obligations on operators .. Transparency (of terms and conditions) is necessary in order for competition to effectively discipline market players in this way – end-users must have access to information about available offers on the market, so that they can identify unrestricted Internet access service offers (providing access to all applications available on the Internet) as well as any limitations that apply to restricted offers ..
   
• Monitoring - . .. regulators continuously monitor the quality of Internet offers on the market, as well as the evolution of the market as a whole.
   
• Using additional powers, e.g. on quality of service, when necessary .. These requirements could take the form of minimum statistical QoS levels (where an Internet access service is being degraded) and/or a prohibition on blocking and throttling (where a particular application is being throttled or blocked). In either case, BEREC believes this power should be used with caution, and typically only where other regulatory tools are unable to make a sufficient impact quickly enough.

See "BEREC has adopted two summaries and the updated reports on net neutrality" - here.

[Globes]: Israeli ISPs will have to Advertise Minimum Broadband Speeds

Gad Peretz reports to Globes that the Israeli Ministry of Communications is going to add another level of transparency on ISP services.

ISPs will have to advertise, using the same font size they publish their "up-to" speeds, the minimum (committed) speed provided to the subscriber - both for downloads and uploads. 

There are no details on how these speeds are measured, including which services or severs will be used as a benchmark (see "UK: Transparency for Unlimited and "up-to" Service Speeds" - here)

See here (Hebrew).

FCC Chairman: UBB is Useful; Should be Transparent and Fair

   

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski (pictured) spoke recenelty at Vox Media, making a statement on usage based billing.

At the end of 2010 Mr. Genachowski said that "Our work has also demonstrated the importance of business innovation to promote network investment and efficient use of networks, including measures to match price to cost such as usage-based pricing" (see "FCC: Usage-Based Pricing is Important" - here) - this time he was more cautious.

"This explosion of online video and other high-bandwidth applications and services is leading Internet users to consume more and more data every month. To maximize the opportunities of broadband for our conomy, consumers need sufficient monthly broadband capacity to make e-commerce routine and unconstrained".

".. This presents challenges for broadband providers in managing the growing loads on their networks while earning returns to drive capital investment in network upgrades and expansion. One tool we’ve seen is usage-based pricing, often implemented with monthly data limits.I’ve said since 2010 that, in a competitive market, usage-based pricing can be a useful tool, consistent with the goals of driving efficiency, investment, and faster and more robust network infrastructure. In general, experimentation in business models in competitive markets is something to be encouraged, and has historically benefited consumers".

 
"At the same time, I’ve been clear that I’m concerned about practices that harm competition, including from over-the-top providers; unnecessarily depress broadband usage; or reduce incentives to increase broadband speeds and capacity. As I said earlier this year, as consumer usage grows and technology improvements enable providers to deliver more bits at lower cost, we should expect that any monthly usage limits will increase and that consumer cost-per-bit will decrease".

" .. And certainly, any usage-based pricing practices should be implemented in a transparent and easy-to-understand manner – so consumers are treated fairly and have the tools they need to make the right decisions based on their needs".

See "Chairman Genachowski Remarks on Broadband at Vox Media" - here.