Mark Cuban on net neutrality: FCC can’t protect competition

[soundcloud url=”https://api.soundcloud.com/tracks/193100656″ params=”color=ff5500&auto_play=false&hide_related=false&show_comments=true&show_user=true&show_reposts=false” width=”100%” height=”166″ iframe=”true” /]

As someone who takes her cues on net neutrality from Gigaom’s resident expert Stacey Higginbotham or, failing that, John Oliver, this is hard to admit: Mark Cuban may have a point on why the proposed net neutrality regulations may be a cure that’s worse than the disease.

If adopted, he maintained, these regs will open the door to more confusion, more litigation and more overall turmoil, none of which will serve consumers well. Before you throw your device at the wall, just give him a listen. Cuban, the serial entrepreneur who started out as a VAR before founding Broadcast.com which sold to [company]Yahoo[/company] in a $5.7 billion stock deal in 1999. He is now owner of the Dallas Mavericks, co-star of Shark Tank and CEO of of AXS TV  and interestingly a star of new AT&T commercials. The hyphens just keep coming.

Here’s his gist on net neutrality. He doesn’t think the big bad ISPs have behaved all that badly, or all that differently, than they ever have, so why all the hubbub now?

“It’s not like [company]AT&T[/company] and [company]Comcast[/company] have recently become super big companies and changed their actions… One of the tenets of net neutrality is that no legal website should be discriminated against. Well, name me one that has been.” He also pretty much dismisses [company]Netflix[/company] claims that it in fact faced such discrimination.

He sees competition ramping up in both in wired and wireless access — if these markets are so foreclosed why is Google doing broadband? Why is “AT&T going out of its traditional TV markets where they have U-verse to compete with Comcast and Google? That’s one layer. On the other layer you have mobile, with [company]Cablevision[/company] going into Manhattan where [company]Verizon[/company] and AT&T have broadband wireless and putting together an unwired wifi network for $30 a month’

His point is that there is competition, although it may not be the competition we would all like to see.

Cuban is clearly worried about one, well two mega players and neither one is a big ISP. “I would rather see national competition for [company]Google[/company] than no competition for Google. If you put a lid on Time Warner and Comcast and Google just keeps adding more and more markets, who’s going to compete with them?”

Google and [company]Apple[/company] constitute a huge countervailing force for all the ISPs because of their mobile might. “The fastest growing access for Internet is mobile. Who controls access to mobile? Google and Apple. The far greater risk is if Apple decides that the Comcast app is not right, Comcast won’t be able to reach most of its market to give access to its own broadband. Kind of crazy but it’s a possibility.” For the record, he isn’t recommending regulation to stop that either.

His point isn’t that Comcast or Time Warmer or insert-your-least-favorite cable provider here) are so great — he admits they are not — it’s just that the FCC its regulations are ill equipped to deal with fast-changing technologies. The public would be better served to let the cable companies duke it out with each other and, perhaps more to the point, with far scarier competitors including Google and Apple.

He starts about 10 minutes in. But here is the kill shot: Do you really want the same organization (the FCC) that took 8 years to deal with Janet Jackson’s Wardrobe Malfunction at Super Bowl XXXVIII to be the gating factor in the internet? Ummmm, maybe not.

Listen to the whole thing to find out how you, too, can get in touch with Cuban, such a shy and reserved guy, to ask your own questions on net neutrality; whether the NBA is seeing diminishing returns on data analytics; and why the heck the Celtics let the Mavs steal Rajon Rondo. Whatever.

Businessman and TV personality Mark Cuban speaks onstage at TechCrunch Disrupt at Pier 48 on September 8, 2014 in San Francisco, California.

Businessman and TV personality Mark Cuban speaks onstage at TechCrunch Disrupt at Pier 48 on September 8, 2014 in San Francisco, California.

In our intro section, Jonathan Vanian and I discuss all (or a bunch anyway) of this week’s Kubernetes news — where Mirantis was latest into the pool, working with Google to bring the cluster management framework to OpenStack clouds, joining HP and a raft of other tech vendors endorsing the open-source framework. Interestingly, Spotify blazed its own trail,  Helios as opposed to Kubernetes for its own workloads.

Oh and we wonder what is up, exactly, with HP’s cloud now that Marten Mickos has stepped back from his leadership job — after just six months.

SHOW NOTES

Hosts: Barb Darrow, Derrick Harris and Jonathan Vanian

Download This Episode

Subscribe in iTunes

The Structure Show RSS Feed

PREVIOUS EPISODES:

Microsoft’s machine learning guru on why data matters sooooo much 

No, you don’t need a ton of data to do deep learning 

VMware wants all those cloud workloads “marooned” in AWS

Don’t like your cloud vendor? Wait a second.

Hilary Mason on taking big data from theory to reality

 

 

Twitter is latest to boost FCC’s net neutrality plan

Twitter came out on Monday in support of FCC chairman Tom Wheeler’s plan to impose net neutrality, which is slated for a critical vote on Thursday, praising it as a way to ensure free communications and an open internet.

“Safeguarding the historic open architecture of the internet and the ability for all users to ‘innovate without permission’ is critical to American economic aspirations and our nation’s global competitiveness. These rules also have important implications for freedom of expression,” said the company in a blog post.

[company]Twitter[/company]’s endorsement of the plan, which would prevent ISPs from speeding up some websites at the expense of others, is significant given the company’s role as a major media company, and its historical advocacy of free speech.

In its blog post, Twitter pointed out a familiar refrain of net neutrality advocates: that emerging companies depend on access to the internet platforms that will carry their products and ideas.

“This openness promotes free and fair competition and fosters ongoing investment and innovation … Without such net neutrality principles in place, some of today’s most successful and widely-known Internet companies might never have come into existence.”

Twitter also endorses Wheeler’s plan to use so-called Title II rules, and treat ISPs as common carriers, in order to enforce net neutrality. Those rules have touched off a massive lobbying campaign by Republicans backed by the cable industry, which is seeking to characterize the measure as executive overreach. Twitter, however, pointed out that the agency is applying the rules in a “light touch” fashion, and avoiding the more burdensome parts of the regulation.

Twitter’s decision to publicly endorse Title II comes after a variety of other companies, including [company]Netflix[/company] and Etsy, have argued the rules are necessary to ensure ISP’s don’t use their control over internet pipes to stifle potential competition.

The curious case of Angela Merkel and her EU data retention ideas

In the wake of last week’s terrorist attacks in Paris, German Chancellor Angela Merkel has called on the European Commission to deliver on its “promise” of a new EU-wide data retention directive to replace the one struck down by the EU’s highest court last year.

Merkel wants to implement this new directive into German law. There’s only one problem: the Commission doesn’t seem to have promised any such thing, at least not in public.

The Court of Justice of the European Union struck down the Data Retention Directive 2006 in April of last year because it was disproportionate and had insufficient safeguards. The directive had mandated that EU countries had to force telecommunications firms to retain metadata about their customers’ communications for between six and 24 months. Even before the CJEU scrapped it, Germany had already stopped implementing it on constitutional grounds.

On Thursday, according to a DPA report, Merkel told German parliamentarians:

Given the cross-party conviction among all interior ministers, both state-level and federal, that we need such minimum retention periods, we should insist that the revision of the directive promised by the EU Commission is quickly completed and then implemented into German law.

That DPA report claims “Brussels is drafting a follow-up that meets the judges’ standards,” but that’s not what the Commission says.

Last month, Netzpolitik reported that new Home Affairs Commissioner Dimitris Avramopoulos was planning to make such an announcement, and that his department was “now reflecting on the how, rather than the if.” However, after that report came out, the department backtracked, with a spokeswoman saying: “I meant that we are now reflecting on the how to take things forward, rather than if we need a new directive or not.”

Avramopoulos’s predecessor, Cecilia Malmström, had previously said she wouldn’t propose any new data retention directive until the EU’s new data protection rules had been finalized – something that now may not happen before 2016.

An EU source confirmed to me today that the Commission is taking its time evaluating the issues raised by the CJEU ruling, and intends to have an open dialog with the European Parliament, member states, civil society, law enforcement and data protection authorities. Only then will it be able to decide whether there is a need for a new proposal, the source said.

Technically, Merkel could try setting up a new German data protection law without a broader EU directive. However, her own justice minister has firmly rejected the mass surveillance idea, telling German television a few days ago: “With data retention, we also store all data from journalists and restrict freedom of the press. That does not fit together.”

She would also need to somehow make sure that her data retention law didn’t fall foul of the arguments the CJEU used to strike down the EU Data Retention Directive, advice from the EU Legal Service division suggests.

SaveTheInternet.eu campaign begs EU states to back net neutrality

A “SaveTheInternet.eu” coalition of civil society groups has sent a letter to the Council of the EU, which is finalizing the European Union’s new net neutrality rules, urging it not to water them down. Recent leaks suggested this will happen, after years of work to toughen the rules up, alarming EU digital chief Andrus Ansip and digital rights activists alike. The coalition argued that, without meaningful net neutrality rules, large ISPs will become gatekeepers choosing which services get to run in fast and slow lanes, and the economy and human rights will suffer as a result. Citizens are being urged to contact their representatives in the Council, which represents the 28 EU member states, ahead of its Thursday debate on the matter.