EU Moves To Create Internet Fast Lanes, Pretends It's Net Neutrality By Redefining Basic Words

from the if-we-just-call-it-net-neutrality,-maybe-no-one-will-notice dept

In 2014, it really looked like Europe was moving towards strong net neutrality, while the US was going to allow for special fast lanes on the internet. In 2015… everything has gone the other way. The US passed real net neutrality rules, while Europe has not only decided to kill net neutrality, but has done so in a way where they pretend that they’re actually supporting net neutrality.

In some way, this isn’t a surprise. EU Digital Commissioner Gunther Oettinger recently mocked net neutrality and its supporters, saying they had turned it into a “Taliban-like” issue. Then a month ago, rumors started to fly that the weekly “trialogue” meetings between the EU Commission, the Council of the EU and the EU Parliament was looking to ditch net neutrality altogether. Instead, it appears that the final solution was actually to redefine net neutrality to pretend they were offering it, while really killing it. And, as a consolation prize, they’re killing off roaming charges around Europe (which can be pretty extreme). But that is little consolation for the fact that they’re actually destroying net neutrality in the process.

The little trick being pulled by politicians who apparently think the public is too stupid to understand this is to redefine net neutrality. First, they claim that the “open internet” is really important and they won’t allow paid prioritization. This part all sounds good:

The rules enshrine the principle of net neutrality into EU law: no blocking or throttling of online content, applications and services. It means that there will be truly common EU-wide Internet rules, contributing to a single market and reversing current fragmentation.

  • Every European must be able to have access to the open Internet and all content and service providers must be able to provide their services via a high-quality open Internet.
  • All traffic will be treated equally. This means, for example, that there can be no paid prioritisation of traffic in the Internet access service. At the same time, equal treatment allows reasonable day-to-day traffic management according to justified technical requirements, and which must be independent of the origin or destination of the traffic.

Sounds good, right? But there’s a pretty big catch. Those rules and the “open internet” don’t cover what most people think of as the internet. Instead, it’s been boxed in. Because the deal also creates a made up new categorization known as “specialized services” where such prioritization will be allowed.

What are specialised services (innovative services or services other than Internet access services)?

The new EU net neutrality rules guarantee the open Internet and enable the provision of specialised or innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access. These are services like IPTV, high-definition videoconferencing or healthcare services like telesurgery. They use the Internet protocol and the same access network but require a significant improvement in quality or the possibility to guarantee some technical requirements to their end-users that cannot be ensured in the best-effort open Internet. The possibility to provide innovative services with enhanced quality of service is crucial for European start-ups and will boost online innovation in Europe. However, such services must not be a sold as substitute for the open Internet access, they come on top of it.

Got it? The “regular” internet has no fast lanes. But… right over here, we have the “specialized services” part of the internet which, you know, kinda looks like a fast lane. Because it is. So, now, basically, in Europe you can buy your way into the fast lane by claiming your services are “specialized” and watching as the regular internet pokes along at slower speeds.

The agreement does a lot of handwaving to pretend this doesn’t destroy net neutrality, but the more handwaving they do, the more obvious it is that the politicians here know exactly what they’re doing:

By allowing the provision of innovative services, are we not promoting a two-tier Internet?

No. Every European must be able to have access to the open Internet and all content and service providers will be able to provide their services via a high-quality open Internet. But more and more innovative services require a certain transmission quality in order to work properly, such as telemedicine or automated driving. These and other services that can emerge in the future can be developed as long as they do not harm the availability and the quality of the open Internet.

Therefore it is important to have future proof rules which, while fully safeguarding the open Internet, allow market operators to provide services with specific quality requirements in order to provide them in safe manner. It is not a question of fast lanes and slow lanes – as paid prioritisation is not allowed, but of making sure that all needs are served, that all opportunities can be seized and that no one is forced to pay for a service that is not needed.

Oh, and of course, the new rules allow zero rating, which is the sneaky trick by which telcos use data caps to backdoor in preferential treatment to those willing to pay, while pretending this is some sort of benefit to consumers. The EU sees no problem with this, despite the fact that it enables large internet companies to squeeze out startups and smaller players.

What is zero rating?

Zero rating, also called sponsored connectivity, is a commercial practice used by some providers of Internet access, especially mobile operators, not to count the data volume of particular applications or services against the user’s limited monthly data volume.

Zero rating does not block competing content and can promote a wider variety of offers for price-sensitive users, give them interesting deals, and encourage them to use digital services. But we have to make sure that commercial practices benefit users and do not in practice lead to situations where end-users’ choice is significantly reduced. Regulatory authorities will therefore have to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules.

Of course, Digital Commissioner Oettinger inadvertently appeared to confirm that this is the end of net neutrality with his poorly worded tweet on the subject, in which he notes that this is “the end of roaming and net neutrality.”

Obviously, he only meant “the end of” to apply to roaming, but having it cover net neutrality as well would be a lot more accurate. Either way, while Oettinger once compared it to a Taliban-like issue, his response has been more on the Orwellian side of things. So long as they redefine the words, the government hopes no one will notice what they actually did. It’s the public officials’ way of thinking that they’re clever and that the public is stupid. That seems like an unwise assumption.

Filed Under: , , , , , , , ,

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “EU Moves To Create Internet Fast Lanes, Pretends It's Net Neutrality By Redefining Basic Words”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
71 Comments
Don't blow a gasket, Google-boy says:

Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!

Yet again predicting disaster. Know why I hoot away at Masnick? Because EVERY point in this article hinges on Masnick’s assumed expertise and authority. Take away that presumption and it’s just ranting.

The “no harm” will pan out or not, but that’s WAY down the line. If he can find some way to claim did harm, Masnick will toot his own horn; if doesn’t will never mention this again.

Masnick has a Messiah complex, where only he can see current and future dangers. He claims everyone doing the actual deciding is an idiot, at best don’t have his sweeping grasp of teh internets. Sheesh, what an ego.

Don't blow a gasket, Google-boy says:

Re: Re: Re: Masnick against

>> they must be paying quite a bit of money as there are two identical posts from different IPs. Therefore people must be jumping at the opportunity to troll on techdirt.

Sheesh. Are you clowns unaware of TOR and that I have to use it to post here at all? If gets blocked, then I don’t bother waiting as usually doesn’t make it, so just grab another IP address (there’s a button), toss my cookies (those get poisoned), and try again.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Masnick against

Well then answer me this, why are you so concerned that your paid shilling / trolling gets posted? Are you paid by the number of posts? The number of times you click “Submit”?

Whatever it is it must pay well because I can’t think of any other reason why somebody who obviously disagrees with techdirt would spend as much time here as you do knowing that what you say means absolute shit to everybody else.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!

Take away that presumption and it’s just ranting.

You can call whatever you wish, but the bottom line still remains the same: Thousands of people come back here every day to hear what Mike has to say and very few (if any, based on how fast your comments are hidden) are here for what you have to say.

Snarkback says:

Re: Re: Masnick against

>> Thousands of people come back here every day to hear what Mike has to say and very few (if any, based on how fast your comments are hidden) are here for what you have to say.

I agree. Techdirt has the fastest censors around, and a goodly number of fanboys who can’t tolerate a bit of text. You are perhaps the most alcoholic of them, or you might see that’s not really a bragging point.

But as you claim the “authority” of numbers — as if majority rules in realm of ideas — then state exactly how many clicks from “the community” it requires to censor a comment, and whether administrator approves it. … Since you can’t answer that, then it’s just one censor denying everyone else the purpose of the forum: free expression of ideas.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Masnick against

…and a goodly number of fanboys who can’t tolerate a bit of text.

I find it pretty funny that you constantly trot out this deluded notion of “it’s the fanboys that always censor me”.

Is it just too unfathomable to your simple mind that the intelligent, educated and well spoken readers of Techdirt also think your comments are outlandish and trollish?

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!

…Thousands of people come back here every day to hear what Mike has to say…

Well I also drop by for words by Tim, Timothy, and Karl.

All informational, sometimes entertaining, even if I don’t agree with their positions.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!

¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿¿”Thousands of people come back here every day” ????????

NO, Hundreds come back Tens of times to squabble in the forums.

Look at the counter on the podcasts, 1193 listens in a week for the latest one, 173 followers. That’s hundreds, not thousands.

You alone, Gwiz, must be responsible for 50 page views a day at the rate you comment, Blue would be higher and all his are unique IP addresses.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!

NO, Hundreds come back Tens of times to squabble in the forums.

Look at the stats for yourself:

https://www.quantcast.com/techdirt.com?country=GLOBAL

The lowest number of unique visitors to Techdirt last month was around 13,000 on 6/21.

Look at the counter on the podcasts, 1193 listens in a week for the latest one, 173 followers. That’s hundreds, not thousands.

That’s just the podcasts, not this site.

You alone, Gwiz, must be responsible for 50 page views a day at the rate you comment, Blue would be higher and all his are unique IP addresses.

I only view Techdirt from two different IP addresses (home & work). Yes, I refresh and bounce around a lot, but those would be counted in the pageviews column, not the unique visitors column.

And yes, by using Tor and different addresses, Blue adds to the unique visitors total, but I generalized with “thousands” and I am well within the ballpark with that generalization.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!

I think it’s hilarious that blue outright admits that he hates the website and actively contributes to inflating its viewing statistics – while using technology he actively campaigns against on the grounds that only “pirates” would use it.

“If you hate something, do everything in your power to make it look good and aid its flourishing growth.” Blue is following the RIAA’s manual on what to do with Napster.

Seriously, what a big cocksucker he is.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re:

This. And they are able to force it on everyone since they basically live in a fishbowl far removed from what they are legislating. Most of the blame goes on the council where ministers represented by COREPER are representing their countrys economic interests against parliament regulation.

The commissions illusion of being neutral and factual, while being extremely far from both is extremely clear in Jean-Claude “tax avoidance” Junckers horror cabinet.

It doesn’t help that the parliament is a mess of people constantly getting bombarded by industry lobbyists and fighting for legislation without a strong coalition of lobbyists on your side is political suicide…

Don't blow a gasket, Google-boy says:

Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!

Yet again predicting disaster. Know why I hoot away at Masnick? Because EVERY point in this article hinges on Masnick’s assumed expertise and authority. Take away that presumption and it’s just ranting.

The “no harm” will pan out or not, but that’s WAY down the line. If he can find some way to claim did harm, Masnick will toot his own horn; if doesn’t will never mention this again.

Masnick has a Messiah complex, where only he can see current and future dangers. He claims everyone doing the actual deciding is an idiot, at best don’t have his sweeping grasp of teh internets. Sheesh, what an ego.

JD says:

Re: Masnick against "innovative services on condition that they do not harm the open Internet access"!

EVERY point in this article hinges on Masnick’s assumed expertise and authority.

Or, you know, a passing familiarity with ISP behavior. There’s a quote here about “those who forget history” which may be applicable….

Masnick has a Messiah complex, where only he can see current and future dangers.

Yes, he’s the only one, there’s no one else who reached the same conclusion.

I assume you’re also going to go comment at Fortune, Popular Mechanics, Ars Technica, The Verge, Wired, and WTVPC, calling all of those writers “Messiahs” who are each the only person warning of these dangers?

Anonymous Coward says:

Ahh, the good old Quality of Service (QoS) myth. I’m interested how these politicians plan to prioritize certain applications, seeing how more and more internet services are using encryption. How can the network even see what kind of application is passing through the network if it’s encrypted?

QoS on an overloaded network is a band-aid over a gaping wound. The only way to heal the wound is to upgrade a networks capacity so it can support user demand.

Don't blow a gasket, Google-boy says:

>>> "I assume you're ... calling all of those writers "Messiahs" who are each the only person warning of these dangers?"

There you go ASSUMING! Proves my point!

But you do assume RIGHT! The only thing guaranteed on teh internets is beaucoup knuckleheads with chutzpah claiming authority to see the future! — But thanks for confirming that it’s based on assumption of authority and pointing out that Masnick isn’t even leading the pack, just re-writing. Whoo, that’s not only sagacious but daring!

AND AGAIN, the test is no harm to existing services. ALL PREDICTIONS ARE BASELESS. Just doom porn.

ottermaton (profile) says:

Way to go everyone!

For everyone who thinks it’s a good idea to respond to the blowhard moron that trolls this site:

Good job! You’ve made this ENTIRE THREAD (with just 2 exceptions) a complete waste of time. It consists of nothing more than the rantings of a lunatic, and responses to the idiot’s tirade.

Congratulations.

This is a good example of why the troll and everyone who replies to him needs reported instantly and ignored.

DocGerbil100 (profile) says:

Re: Way to go everyone!

The best way for trolls and trolling organisations to win an argument is to control both sides, usually by posting something emotive and inflamatory that shuts down critical thought.

Failing that, crapflooding the page with nonsense also seems to be a win for them – if the “argument” happens at the top of the thread, all the reasoned debate gets knocked out of view, minimising the number of people who will see it and maximising the number who see only semi-literate idiocy.

While there will always be a few genuine commenters who respond to troll posts, it’s quite likely that some, most or even all of these replies are themselves by paid shills, who will post reasonable comments some of the time to look legit, but are really only there to reply to trolls when it counts.

They don’t need lecturing, they need to be banned forever.

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Way to go everyone!

Failing that, crapflooding the page with nonsense also seems to be a win for them – if the “argument” happens at the top of the thread, all the reasoned debate gets knocked out of view, minimising the number of people who will see it and maximising the number who see only semi-literate idiocy.

That you think that the average reader is unable to parse a conversation and determine what is noise and what is signal is semi-insulting.

…it’s quite likely that some, most or even all of these replies are themselves by paid shills…

LOL. I wish someone paid me to comment here.

They don’t need lecturing, they need to be banned forever.

So your solution to speech you disagree with or that annoys you is to ban that speech?

Now don’t get me wrong here, I agree that the shills and morons like Blue are most definitely annoying and distracting to the conversation here, but I will fight to the death for their right to express themselves as much as I would for my own rights to express myself.

The proper response to incorrect or disagreeable speech is to counter it with more speech.

ottermaton (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re: Way to go everyone!

That you think that the average reader is unable to parse a conversation and determine what is noise and what is signal is semi-insulting.

While you may be able to see the distinction, your actions indicate the opposite. What good or improvement or enlightenment has ever come from replying to Blue’s posts?

None.

The proper response to incorrect or disagreeable speech is to counter it with more speech.

More accurate adjectives would be “incoherent” and “disturbing” but whatever …

You and everyone who replies is increasing the noise, not the signal. Ignore him. Move on.

As one of the more prolific repliers to his comment, I just hope that someday you’ll take the hint from your handle, wake up, and say, “Gee whiz! I wasn’t helping the problem, I was making it worse.”

Gwiz (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Way to go everyone!

What good or improvement or enlightenment has ever come from replying to Blue’s posts? None.

I’m going to agree to disagree with you on this.

I mostly try to correct his incorrect notions, not for his benefit, but for future readers. Something to keep in mind is that even though comments are hidden with Javascript on this site, they are still picked up by Google’s search crawlers.

Notice I said “mostly” up there. I’m aware that sometimes I do digress to his level. I am only human and the only thing that annoys me more than someone being stupid is someone being stupid loudly.

As one of the more prolific repliers to his comment, I just hope that someday you’ll take the hint from your handle, wake up, and say, “Gee whiz! I wasn’t helping the problem, I was making it worse.”

I would have to view it as a problem in the first place. I just don’t see it as that big of a deal.

MrTroy (profile) says:

Re: Re: Re:2 Way to go everyone!

While you may be able to see the distinction, your actions indicate the opposite. What good or improvement or enlightenment has ever come from replying to Blue’s posts?

None.

Second-most-insightful comment of the week in response to a troll post: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150426/10123930790/funniestmost-insightful-comments-week-techdirt.shtml

nasch (profile) says:

Re: Way to go everyone!

This is a good example of why the troll and everyone who replies to him needs reported instantly and ignored.

I think it’s a good example of why all replies to a hidden comment should also be hidden. That way the whole waste of time can just be skipped all at once. I started on a greasemonkey script to do that but didn’t get around to finishing it.

AJ says:

Shit like this is going to happen, and it’s going to accelerate. History cannot be denied! People form a government and appoint Politicians. Politicians need money, the rich have the money, the rich offer to give the Politicians some if they do what they want, Politicians become corrupt and make laws that favor the rich. The people revolt. People form new governments with new Politicians…. and around we go.

We can slow or speed up this process, depending on how well we form the government and other factors, but if history is any indication, it’s going to fall apart eventually… and it’s going to be because of greed, it always is.

Violynne (profile) says:

I can’t wait until ISPs take advantage of these changes…

“Sign up today, and we’ll offer a FREE one-way controlled CCTV camera with installation! After we bugger your speed, we’ll sell your angry expression for adverts while providing a copy of your face to the local authority’s database. Hurry soon. This deal is set never to expire, because really, what choice do you have now?”

Maybe Comcast should pick up and move to countries “governed” by the EU.

Whoever says:

"healthcare services like telesurgery"

How are they going to know that the packets are being used to carry telesurgery data? Deep packet inspection on surgery data. There are so many things wrong with that idea, that I don’t know where to start.

This is so bogus. They are lying about the uses of the prioritization. They know it, we know it, but unfortunately, not enough voters know or care about it.

Anonymous Coward says:

Zero Rating

isn’t the evil that you make out. We’ve got it here in NZ, where all the internet travels on submarine cables. Zero rating applies here on high-volume local sites (tv-on-demand, trademe etc), i:e traffic that doesn’t travel down the submarine cable. It is also a relic from a time when the internet was very expensive and had low data-caps (as low as 10Gb a month).

Net Neutrality was a US solution to a US problem. Europe didn’t have Ma Bell, so they don’t have the same problems with telecommunications that the US does. Do Europe NEED “net neutrality”-or are they fine as they are.

John Fenderson (profile) says:

Re: Zero Rating

“Net Neutrality was a US solution to a US problem.”

This is an excellent point that is easily forgotten. NN is an attempt to solve a serious problem created by the fact that there is little competition in the ISP space.

In places where there is actually a competitive marketplace, NN would not really be needed.

Teamchaos (profile) says:

Who knew

Who knew that the Europeans could come up with a version of net neutrality that makes sense. Prioritizing tele-surgery over email and cat videos, makes sense to me. Like the poster from NZ said, there are even cases where zero rating makes sense. The problem with net neutrality zealots is that they don’t live in the real world, where some traffic prioritization makes sense.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Who knew

Prioritizing tele-surgery over email and cat videos, makes sense to me.

It is a stupid idea, as tele-surgery needs to be on a high reliability and secure network, and not on the Internet where someone other than the surgeon can take control off the scalpel, or a border router error route the signal right around the globe or via a geostationary satellite. You do not want high latency to be suddenly introduced into the signal path. (If a bit of latency can get you killed in a video game, it cam also get you killed on the operating table.)

Anonymous Coward says:

Lets say an ISP has a 10mbps connection to the internet. You have 10 users all doing similar stuff so are receiving 1mbps each. One user starts up a specialized service which requires 5mbps to function. That means the other 9 users would now only be getting 0.556mbps. How do they then say “All traffic will be treated equally” when you have one person getting 5mbs and nine people getting 0.556mbps.

All they really are saying is that everyone in the slow lane is treated like crap equally.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: TL;DR

shameless selfreply…

After reading the article I can’t express how very sorry we germans are for that guy. Someone had to take the job and a politician who should receive pension seemed good enoug at the time.

no citizen in the EU was able to vote for him. It is all the EU parliaments fault.. blame them… wanting democracy but the police force is too strong…

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...
Older Stuff
09:32 AT&T Whines That California Net Neutrality Rules Are Forcing It To Behave (11)
06:23 The New York Times (Falsely) Informs Its 7 Million Readers Net Neutrality Is 'Pointless' (51)
15:34 Facebook's Australian News Ban Did Demonstrate The Evil Of Zero Rating (18)
04:58 'Net Neutrality Hurt Internet Infrastructure Investment' Is The Bad Faith Lie That Simply Won't Die (11)
05:48 Dumb New GOP Talking Point: If You Restore Net Neutrality, You HAVE To Kill Section 230. Just Because! (66)
06:31 DOJ Drops Ridiculous Trump-Era Lawsuit Against California For Passing Net Neutrality Rules (13)
06:27 The Wall Street Journal Kisses Big Telecom's Ass In Whiny Screed About 'Big Tech' (13)
10:45 New Interim FCC Boss Jessica Rosenworcel Will Likely Restore Net Neutrality, Just Not Yet (5)
15:30 Small Idaho ISP 'Punishes' Twitter And Facebook's 'Censorship' ... By Blocking Access To Them Entirely (81)
05:29 A Few Reminders Before The Tired Net Neutrality Debate Is Rekindled (13)
06:22 U.S. Broadband Speeds Jumped 90% in 2020. But No, It Had Nothing To Do With Killing Net Neutrality. (12)
12:10 FCC Ignores The Courts, Finalizes Facts-Optional Repeal Of Net Neutrality (19)
10:46 It's Opposite Day At The FCC: Rejects All Its Own Legal Arguments Against Net Neutrality To Claim It Can Be The Internet Speech Police (13)
12:05 Blatant Hypocrite Ajit Pai Decides To Move Forward With Bogus, Unconstitutional Rulemaking On Section 230 (178)
06:49 FCC's Pai Puts Final Bullet In Net Neutrality Ahead Of Potential Demotion (25)
06:31 The EU Makes It Clear That 'Zero Rating' Violates Net Neutrality (6)
06:22 DOJ Continues Its Quest To Kill Net Neutrality (And Consumer Protection In General) In California (11)
11:08 Hypocritical AT&T Makes A Mockery Of Itself; Says 230 Should Be Reformed For Real Net Neutrality (28)
06:20 Trump, Big Telecom Continue Quest To Ban States From Protecting Broadband Consumers (19)
06:11 Senators Wyden And Markey Make It Clear AT&T Is Violating Net Neutrality (13)
06:31 Net Neutrali-what? AT&T's New Streaming Service Won't Count Against Its Broadband Caps. But Netflix Will. (25)
06:23 Telecom's Latest Dumb Claim: The Internet Only Works During A Pandemic Because We Killed Net Neutrality (49)
13:36 Ex-FCC Staffer Says FCC Authority Given Up In Net Neutrality Repeal Sure Would Prove Handy In A Crisis (13)
06:27 Clarence Thomas Regrets Brand X Decision That Paved Way For The Net Neutrality Wars (11)
06:17 The FCC To Field More Comments On Net Neutrality. Maybe They'll Stop Identity Theft And Fraud This Time? (79)
08:56 AT&T, Comcast Dramatically Cut Network Spending Despite Net Neutrality Repeal (16)
06:18 Ajit Pai Hits CES... To Make Up Some Shit About Net Neutrality (24)
06:24 Mozilla, Consumer Groups Petition For Rehearing of Net Neutrality Case (22)
06:49 AT&T Exec Insists That No Broadband Company Is Violating Net Neutrality Even Though AT&T Is Absolutely Violating Net Neutrality (19)
06:45 Shocker: ISPs Cut Back 2020 Investment Despite Tax Breaks, Death Of Net Neutrality (61)
More arrow