Of data capping, competition and consumer rights

Exactly two years to the month after I wrote about the “end of unlimited data plans”
in the Philippines, we are back to talking about telcos’ fair use
policy (FUP) on data usage and how it, in effect, nullifies the point of
consumers for subscribing to “unli.”

After the deregulation of
the nation's telecom sector in the early ‘90s, one would think that the
primary roles of the regulator would be to promoting competition and
protect consumer rights. In all fairness, the National
Telecommunications Commission (NTC) does try, with its limited resources
and all. But its stance seems vague and actions weak on checking and
ensuring quality of internet service.

The NTC does not prohibit
data capping. Telcos are allowed to implement their respective FUPs
purportedly to protect their subscribers against the less than 5% who
hog 80% of the bandwidth.

But over the past week, with the
complaints over data capping getting aggravated by issues on spam SMS
and slow internet connection, the issue reached yet another tipping
point. After some media attention, the regulator had to react, somehow.

This
is an all too familiar scenario that is happening all too often. How
many times do we have to see this cycle of constant complaints and media
attention before the government steps in and does something to address
the problem, for good?

Internet in the Philippines is slow and
expensive. And consumers get cut off or are given slower connections
once they’ve reached a usage cap.

Globe Telecom’s FUP puts a
threshold of 1GB per day or 3GB per month, while Smart allows for a
1.5GB per day, both for mobile browsing but depending on the data plan.

In
principle, imposing a data cap makes sense. When you have a finite
amount of bandwidth and a growing pool of subscribers, it is logical to
put a usage cap so that all consumers would be able to get the same
service. Also, data capping is a “global industry practice” of telcos
anywhere in the world, one ISP said in a statement.

But in
reality, subscribers buy into unlimited data plans because of what they
need, not because of what they think the ISPs could actually offer
(because they ought to offer service as advertised, right?) or what the
next consumer is not allowed to use.

According to Globe, “media
streaming and downloading of torrents are considered... excessive use.”
So that means goodbye YouTube, Pandora, and other similar online
activities that, to me, are common fare at this day and age. Smart’s
FUP, on the other hand, is meant to regulate customers “whose improper
or abusive use of mobile browsing may jeopardize our ability to deliver
the best customer experience to other subscribers.”

But how does
an operator discriminate the abusive data hoggers from the typical
consumer? It does not. Once the predetermined data usage threshold is
reached, the consumer is informed by the ISP and his connection is
shifted to 2G browsing speed regardless of reason for reaching the cap.

For Winthrop Yu of the Internet Society – Philippines Chapter (ISOC.PH),
the very low usage caps are an indication of over-subscription. And this
so-called industry practice is making it “nearly impossible for
Filipinos to take advantage of online education (e.g. Coursera, Udacity,
and even the University of the Philippines’ Open University) without
getting hit with a throttling cap. The data usage caps are, therefore,
anti-education and throttle human capital development.”

Globe, having received a lot of flak lately, posted an infographic
to explain how their FUP is in fact, well, fair. Globe users were quick
to react, with a few pointing out that 3GB per month is useless and
that they did not sign up for a “limited” data plan. One suggested that
it was time to switch to Smart.

Not to be outdone, Smart users
complaining about the FUP set up their own Facebook page. Funnily, one
complainant said, “Globe subscribers still got it good.”

Ahh, the beauty of competition!

Democracy.Net.PH,
a group of citizens who led the drafting of the first crowd-sourced
legislative bill on the “Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom”
recently issued a brief on data capping,
complete with a survey of data capping policies of the country’s ISPs.
The group outlined the perils of data capping, and how it is detrimental
to competition and consumers’ rights.

In the spirit of calling a spade a spade, let’s label a service for what it really offers. Maybe
the ISPs should consider renaming unlimited data to “conditional limited
data.” Because calling it unlimited sounds like a marketing scheme
designed to make consumers hungry, and pay to get all that tasty-looking
chicken in the buffet. But the consumers don’t get a refill until after
some time, because the kitchen ran out of chicken in the freezer. And
the cook is not telling.

 | Telecom Asia

General Gets Girlie Makeover for Marcos Birthday

Imelda Marcos returned to the Philippines after her husband’s death and the family slowly regained some political power. Imelda is a congresswoman and her son, Ferdinand Jr., is a senator eyeing a presidential run in 2016. Agence France-PresseFerdinand Marcos. AFP FILE PHOTO
Then Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos forced his military chiefs to parade as women during a tasteless, sycophantic birthday party planned by his unstable wife, according to US diplomatic cables. The US ambassador to the Philippines in the mid-1970s, William Sullivan, wrote a series of blistering criticisms of Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos in secret cables that have since been declassified and published by WikiLeaks. In one of the reports, dated Sept. 12, 1973, Sullivan recounted a “two-day blast” of a party for Ferdinand Marcos that he said was at odds with state-controlled media reports that he “spent a quiet birthday at his desk.” “In general, every aspect of the occasion was too much, too long, and in questionable taste,” Sullivan wrote in the report to Washington. Sullivan wrote that one of the lowest points was when military chiefs were required, under instructions from Imelda Marcos, to perform in a presidential Palace floor show “in garish female attire.” “This whole affair was a saccharine suffusion of sycophancy,” he wrote, according to the cables published on the website of the antisecrecy organization this week. Ferdinand Marcos ruled the Philippines for nearly 20 years until an Army-backed “People Power” uprising involving millions of people forced him to flee into US exile in 1986. He died in Hawaii three years later. While Sullivan appeared in the cables not to personally care much for either of the Marcoses, the United States supported the dictatorship until the final moments of the revolution. Royal wedding Sullivan wrote repeatedly of what he saw as the personality flaws of Imelda Marcos, who cultivated immense power during her husband’s rule and famously lived a lavish lifestyle while most Filipinos endured brutal poverty. In one cable, he warned British diplomats that Imelda would not be concerned about protocol in trying to get herself invited to Princess Anne’s wedding. “First lady has reputation for royal manner of lifestyle in Philippines and would not be above lobbying for invitation to British royal wedding,” he wrote. ‘Perspective a bit awry’ In 1974 cables ahead of a visit by Imelda Marcos to the United States, Sullivan warned his head office that communist Chinese leaders had done a “very effective snow job” that had colored her outlook on the all things American. Sullivan said she was particularly concerned that her daughter Imee was surrounded by “faggots” while studying at Princeton University. “Given all this background, Imelda is in a slightly touchy state and a small offense or an untoward incident could spell lasting damage. She has not lost her sense of humor, but perspective is more than a bit awry,” he warned.

 

Tags: Diplomacy , Ferdinand Marcos , Imelda Marcos , Internet , Military , Philippines , US , WikiLeaks

 

via technology.inquirer.net

 

Enrile story goes viral: ‘The audacity,’ that’s our money!

“Write to the senators. Tweet them. Ask them if they returned the Enrile bonus. DEMAND ANSWERS. MAKE THEM ACCOUNTABLE. PERA NATIN YUN!” exhorted user @yogon.   By Lawrence de GuzmanPhilippine Daily InquirerSenate President Juan Ponce-Enrile
Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile’s Christmas cash gift of almost P30 million to his fellow senators rubbed Filipino netizens the wrong way, with some critics describing it as “suspicious” and “unethical.” The report on Enrile’s cash gift, which the Philippine Daily Inquirer broke Wednesday, immediately made the rounds of social networking sites as flustered readers shared it on their Twitter and Facebook accounts. The story easily became the most read article on INQUIRER.net, the broadsheet’s official website, with hundreds of users swarming to the comments section. On Facebook, the article had been recommended by users over 6,000 times by Wednesday evening. “Enrile has no power whatsoever to disburse public money indiscriminately!!! Regardless of the type of funds these are allocated to, these still belong to the government of the Filipinos and therefore cannot be spent arbitrarily,” user Bansot commented on the Inquirer website. “While the rest of the Filipinos are working hard, these senators are living luxurious lives,” user Jeff Castillo commented on the story. “What a way to end his political career, being true to form as a self-serving and corrupt politician,” user kulittwit chimed in. The Inquirer reported that Enrile gave 18 senators P1.6 million each, while four senators got P250,000 each—Antonio “Sonny” Trillanes IV, Miriam Defensor-Santiago, Alan Peter and sister Pia Cayetano who were known to have differences with Enrile. The cash gift, billed as “additional MOOE” or maintenance and other operating expenses, allegedly came from the funds allotted for the Senate post vacated by President Aquino when he won the presidential election in 2010. A senator described the gift as “unconscionable and unconstitutional” and that it could be interpreted as a bribe to prevent his ouster as Senate President, an observation shared by many in cyberspace. In response to these allegations, Enrile took to his official Twitter account, @SPJPE, and tweeted, “Those Senators who think that I am bribing anyone with additional budgets in order to keep my post as Senate President must have a very low opinion about their own colleagues.” “I was elected as Senate President twice and I can look at anyone straight in the eye in saying that I did not buy this position. Not one single centavo of the people’s money was spent just to enable me to cling to this office,” he continued. He issued the same statement to Senate reporters. Still, not many were pleased with Enrile’s distribution of the Senate funds as Christmas gift to his colleagues. “I find Enrile’s generosity suspicious and unethical,” tweeted user @i Jakebustos. ‘The audacity’ “This is a matter that @noynoyaquino should really look into … it stinks of unethical practices using public funds,” said user @kazekhan. “The audacity! Can only come from someone who thinks he’s above the law,” user @retromaldita tweeted. “Imagine if you actually gave that back to the people,” tweeted user @rdacalos. “Those senators had the conscience to accept those gifts amid the catastrophe in Mindanao?” tweeted user @beareyno. “What would folks from Davao feel? Common practice, but was it ethical?” asked user @LiberatingJepoy. This is where taxes go “Kaya lang galante mga trapong yan kasi d nila pera tinatapon nila (They are generous because it’s not their money),” user @IvesNisceII tweeted. “KAPAL! This is where our taxes go!,” said user @jed_pv.

 

Tags: Christmas , Facebook , Government , INQUIRER.net , Internet , Juan Ponce Enrile , politics , Senate , Social Media , State Budget , technology , Twitter

 

via technology.inquirer.net

 

Al Gore Says The Internet Will End Government Corruption. Great. But What About All Those Ads?

On his current visit to San Francisco, today former United States Vice President Al Gore swung through local PBS radio affiliate KQED for an hour-long appearance on the program Forum With Michael Krasny.

It was an interesting and wide-ranging conversation, as Krasny’s interviews often tend to be. But one part in particular was especially interesting from a TechCrunch point of view, when Gore was asked about the environment of corruption, bribery, and lobbying that seems to be as strong as ever in today’s U.S. government.

Gore said that this is indeed a growing issue that will need to be addressed on several levels. He then pointed to the Internet as being one of the most important tools that can help reverse this trend (I’ve embedded the entire audio at the bottom of this post, and this particular bit starts at minute 33:55.) He said:

“Over time, the rise of the Internet will inexorably diminish the role of money in politics, which is driven today in significant measure by the need on the part of politicians to amass these huge war chests primarily for buying 30-second television advertisements.

And as the Internet becomes more prominent and eventually the central way in which we communicate, it does bring the promise of re-empowering individuals to play their roles as citizens and to revitalize representative democracy.”

First, the good news

Now, that sounds great, and this type of outcome would no doubt be good for our nation as a whole. Gore is correct that 30-second television spots politicians today must buy are very expensive, and take up a lot of campaign money. That money could certainly go toward better causes than blasting the nice people of Ohio and other swing states with ads 24/7 for entire months leading up to key national elections.

And now, the bad news

However, Al Gore’s view of the future also seems to imply something else: Internet advertising will never grow to be as lucrative as television advertising. According to Gore, in the future politicians won’t need to accept bribes or be beholden to lobbyists because they just won’t need as much money for ads as they do now. Underlying this is the assumption that either web ads won’t ever be as expensive as TV ads, or that ads won’t be needed because Internet audiences won’t be as susceptible to them as TV audiences are. Maybe it’s a mix of both.

Either way, that sounds bad for many people looking to make an ad-supported living on the web. Many folks in the Internet world are counting on the idea that as audiences for TV and other traditional media decline, the ad dollars that went there — whether they’re spent by consumer brands or politicians — will eventually instead be poured into the web at relatively similar numbers. A common belief is that, sure, some things about ad technology for the web and mobile devices need to be figured out (and hopefully the smart people at a company like Facebook will lead the way) but once they are, the big money will follow. It bears mention that ads are what make a significant part of our economy go ’round, especially when it comes to media organizations as well as sites such as Google, Twitter and Facebook. Political ads play a big part of that ecosystem today, especially in election years.

But Gore’s theory seems based on the thought that advertising, at least on the political level, just won’t ever be as strong on the Internet as it is today on the television. Period. If he turns out to be right, it is yet another reminder that those of us who make a living on the web should be looking to make ends meet with more than just advertising dollars.

via techcrunch.com

WSJ:Google Is Building a New Kind of Wireless Network

There have been rumors floating around the internet for months suggesting Google has been considering building its own LTE network. Now, the Wall Street Journal claims that the search giant is secretly building its own new kind of wireless data network.

The Journal report is centered on an FCC filing spotted by engineer Steven Crowley. Seems Google is set to test a new system around its Mountain View campus, which will use 50 base stations and 200 "user devices". Google lawyers attempted to redact part of the filing, claiming that:

"The information for which confidential treatment is sought concerns the highly competitive consumer electronics market."

Which sounds exciting, but who knows where to begin speculating on a statement like that. Weirdly, the network will only provide coverage for devices built to access frequencies in the range 2524 to 2625 megahertz. The nerdier amongst you will notice that's a completely non-standard section of spectrum in terms of consumer mobile communication. In fact, it also happens to be part of the spectrum owned by Clearwire—which Dish is currently trying to purchase.

Of course, Google does all kinds of crazy shit at its Mountain View campus, so it's unclear whether this project will ever amount to anything. But given the Big G's track record of delivering amazing results, if this is a real thing, it could be worth getting excited about. [Wall Street Journal via Verge]

Image by AP

via gizmodo.com

 

PLDT DSL, mobile phone users lose Internet connections | Inquirer Technology

MANILA, Philippines—Thousands of digital subscriber line (DSL) and mobile device users lost their Internet connections on Wednesday due to problems with one of Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.’s (PLDT) servers responsible for assigning Internet Protocol (IP) addresses to users.

 

The problem was isolated to Metro Manila, and affected only select subscribers in various areas. Connection problems started late Wednesday morning, but service was restored to normal around 3 p.m.

“There was no single location. Some people were affected, some were not,” PLDT public affairs head Ramon Isberto said in an interview.

“(The outage) had something to do with one of the servers that assigned IP addresses,” Isberto said. IP addresses are assigned to all devices connected to the Internet as a way to organize traffic on the web. Without an IP address, a device would not be able to transmit or receive data.

“We regret to inform you that residents of Metro Manila may experience difficulty due to a technical failure,” a PLDT advisory to users said.

Subscribers on PLDT’s mobile subsidiary, Smart Communications, were also affected by the outage.

The company declined to give estimates on how much it lost due to the outage, or exactly how many users were affected. The company was also mum on the possibility of a refund.

The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) said handing out refunds would be PLDT’s prerogative.

“Rebates depend on the network’s agreements with individual subscribers,” NTC common carriers division head Edgardo Cabarios said. The NTC’s policymaking board, however, may order penalties.

The only rule in case of outages is that networks report any incident to the NTC for the sake of transparency, according to Cabarios. “That’s in their franchise. They have to report this under their specific authorizations,” he said.

 

via technology.inquirer.net

 

Who invented the Internet?: The outrageous conservative claim that every tech innovation came from private enterprise. - Slate Magazine

Earlier this month, President Obama argued that wealthy business people owe some of their success to the government’s investment in education and basic infrastructure. He cited roads, bridges, and schools. Then he singled out the most clear-cut example of how government investment can spark huge business opportunities: the Internet.

“The Internet didn’t get invented on its own,” Obama said. “Government research created the Internet so that all the companies could make money off the Internet.”

Until recently this wouldn’t have been a controversial statement. Everyone in the tech world knows that the Internet got its start in the 1960s, when a team of computing pioneers at the Pentagon’s Advanced Research Projects Agency designed and deployed ARPANET, the first computer network that used “packet switching”—a communications system that splits up data and sends it across multiple paths toward its destination, which is the basic design of today’s Internet. According to most accounts, researchers working on ARPANET created many of the Internet’s defining features, including TCP/IP, the protocol on which today’s network operates. In the 1980s, they strung together various government and university networks together using TCP/IP—thus creating a single worldwide network, the Internet.

Advertisement

Suddenly, though, the government’s role in the Internet’s creation is being cast into doubt. “It’s an urban legend that the government launched the Internet,” Gordon Crovitz, the former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, argued Monday in a widely linked Journal op-ed. Instead, Crovitz believes that “full credit” for the Internet’s creation ought to go to Xerox, whose Silicon Valley research facility, Xerox PARC, created the Ethernet networking standard as well as the first graphical computer (famously the inspiration for Apple’s Mac). According to Crovitz, not only did the government not create the Internet, it slowed its arrival—that researchers were hassled by “bureaucrats” who stymied the network’s success.

“It's important to understand the history of the Internet because it's too often wrongly cited to justify big government,” Crovitz says. I’ll give him one thing: It is important to understand the history of the Internet. Too bad he doesn’t seem interested in doing so.

Crovitz’s entire yarn is almost hysterically false. He gets basic history wrong, he gets the Internet’s defining technologies wrong, and, most importantly, he misses the important interplay between public and private funds that has been necessary for all great modern technological advances.

If you spend time looking at the history of the Internet, you’ll find the government there at every step. Researchers working directly for the government and at university labs funded by the government were some of the first people on the planet to think up a worldwide network, and, at the beginning, they were the only people working to build such an outlandish thing. That’s not true just of the Internet. Pop open your smartphone and you’ll find government research at the heart of just about every component, from the batteries to the GPS chip to the microprocessor to the multitouch interface.

This doesn’t mean that the government deserves all credit for creating your phone. But it does mean that President Obama was right—in tech, no one does anything on his own. Useful products are usually the result of years of research by smart people at various intuitions: government labs, university labs, and corporate R&D campuses. The history of the Internet, like much of everything else that makes our world so magical, proves that in the tech industry, it takes a village.

If you want to find out who built the Internet and why, there are a few main sources you should consult. If you’ve got time, read Where Wizards Stay Up Late, Katie Hafner and Matthew Lyon’s definitive history of the founding of the worldwide network. If you don’t have much time, look at A Brief History of the Internet, written by many of the scientists who worked on the system in its early days. The many Wikipedia articles on the history of the Internet are also quite helpful. All these sources put the lie to Crovitz’s ridiculously partisan theory that Xerox, and not the government, created the Internet.

Some of Crovitz’s errors seem to stem from technological ignorance; in arguing that Xerox’s graphical machines were in some way responsible for the design of the Internet, Crovitz seems to conflate the Internet and the World Wide Web. The Web is the system of linked, usually graphical documents you see in a Web browser—i.e., sites like Slate. The Internet is the network over which the Web and other communications systems—e-mail, instant messaging, file-sharing—travel. The Internet predated the Web.

SINGLE PAGE

Page: 1 | 2

Slate Slide Shows

• Click here to load comments.

 

via slate.com