company:at&t

  • #Netflix Reports Paid Customers Rise on Strength Overseas
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/netflix-reports-paid-customers-rise-on-strength-overseas-11547759799

    Companies including AT&T Inc.’s WarnerMedia and Walt Disney Co. are preparing their own content-streaming services to launch later this year. They will be competing with Netflix to sign up consumers and stock their services with content.

    Their entry could drive up Netflix’s programming costs even further, including for popular reruns.

    “We want to win,” [On n’avait pas remarqué] said Netflix Chairman and Chief Executive Reed Hastings when asked about all the new competition. On the company’s earnings call, Mr. Hastings said the goal is still to provide a better environment with incredible content and “no advertising.”

    Netflix said Thursday it was “ready to pay top-of-market prices for second run content.” At the same time, it is making more of its own content in-house as it aims to be less reliant on outside suppliers for original shows and movies.

    Dans son dernier rapport trimestriel — toujours très suivi, ça me fait penser aux Keynote d’Apple —, on apprend notamment :

    – que la firme, qui ne cesse de professer la #transparence, notamment en interne, mais l’est très peu quand il s’agit de communiquer des #chiffres de visionnages de tel ou tel contenu, va commencer à le faire, mais on s’en doute de manière très ciblée.
    – qu’évidemment elle n’a rien contre les salles de cinéma en soi, à condition de ne pas être contrainte par des obligations de financement de la création et les règlementations type "chronologie des médias" en France ; elle communique donc sur le nombre de cinéma qui ont diffusé Roma : 900 en tout. « People love films… at home AND in theaters. »
    – que la techno utilisée pour l’épisode interactif de Black Mirror, dont on a pas mal parlé ici a été baptisée « Branch Manager ».

    Source : https://s22.q4cdn.com/959853165/files/doc_financials/quarterly_reports/2018/q4/01/FINAL-Q4-18-Shareholder-Letter.pdf

    #SVOD #industrie_culturelle



  • The Biggest Threat to Free Speech No One Is Talking About
    https://www.truthdig.com/articles/the-biggest-threat-to-free-speech-no-one-is-talking-about

    Since the repeal in June of Obama-era rules guaranteeing net neutrality, websites like Truthdig, Democracy Now!, Common Dreams and more risk being pushed into an internet slow lane that could severely hamper their readership, if not drive them out of business entirely. For Jeff Cohen, editor and co-founder of the media watchdog Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting (FAIR), it may be the most urgent threat to the First Amendment no one is talking about.

    “The biggest issue of freedom of the press is not that Trump is mean to reporters, as he was last week with CNN’s Jim Acosta and Yamiche Alcindor of “PBS NewsHour,” he tells Robert Scheer. “The biggest freedom-of-the-press issue is that Trump is working with Comcast and AT&T and Verizon to end net neutrality. … Ownership of the media and the ownership of the internet, the fact that these big internet providers are [a] few giant companies that also produce content—it’s very, very dangerous.”

    #neutralité_du_net #filtre #bulle #médias


  • Neutralité du Net : l’industrie télécom américaine attaque l’État du Vermont
    https://www.nextinpact.com/brief/neutralite-du-net---l-industrie-telecom-americaine-attaque-l-etat-du-ver

    Les législateurs du Vermont préparent un projet de loi excluant des marchés publics les entreprises qui ne respectent pas la neutralité du Net, rapporte Reuters. Les groupes sont connus : l’American Cable Association, la CTIA, la NCTA, la New England Cable & Telecommunications Associations et USTelecom. Ils représentent les mastodontes de l’industrie, dont AT&T, Comcast et Verizon. La plainte, déposée devant une cour du Vermont, argue que les États ne peuvent pas réguler indirectement (via (...)

    #Comcast #NCTA #Telecommunications_Industry_Association_(TIA) #USTelecom #Verizon #AT&T #neutralité (...)

    ##Telecommunications_Industry_Association__TIA_ ##AT&T ##neutralité ##procès


  • Amazon’s New Microwave : ‘Alexa, Please Defrost My Chicken’
    https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazons-new-microwave-alexa-please-defrost-my-chicken-1537469765

    New offerings include Alexa-enabled chip that manufacturers can install to control basic appliances In a bid to control the smart home of the future, Amazon.com Inc. AMZN 2.08% is offering makers of electronics a small chip that would let people use their voice to command everything from microwaves and coffee machines to room fans and guitar amplifiers. The online retail giant is hoping big manufacturers will sign up to incorporate the Alexa-enabled chips—which cost a few dollars each—in (...)

    #Alphabet #Apple #Google #Microsoft #Nest #AT&T #Amazon #algorithme #Alexa #domotique #Home #HomePod #biométrie (...)

    ##AT&T ##voix
    https://images.wsj.net/im-27348/social


  • « À l’ère post-Snowden, on ne peut plus se voiler la face »
    https://usbeketrica.com/article/a-l-ere-post-snowden-on-ne-peut-plus-se-voiler-la-face

    L’universitaire américain Yochai Benkler fait partie de ces intellectuels qui pensent l’impact d’Internet sur nos sociétés depuis les années 1990. Le professeur d’études juridiques entrepreneuriales à Harvard est aujourd’hui membre d’une commission lancée le 11 septembre 2018 par l’ONG Reporters sans frontières et chargée de travailler à la rédaction d’une future « déclaration sur l’information et la démocratie ». Nous avons à cette occasion pu échanger avec l’auteur de The Wealth of Networks (La Richesse des (...)

    #Apple #Google #Amazon #Facebook #Netflix #Spotify #algorithme #WiFi #manipulation #BigData #domination #copyright #[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données_(RGPD)[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation_(GDPR)[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation_(GDPR) (...)

    ##[fr]Règlement_Général_sur_la_Protection_des_Données__RGPD_[en]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_[nl]General_Data_Protection_Regulation__GDPR_ ##AT&T


  • Fin de la neutralité du Net : YouTube, Netflix et Amazon Prime Video bridés
    https://abonnes.lemonde.fr/pixels/article/2018/09/07/les-operateurs-americains-freinent-youtube-netflix-et-amazon-prime-v ?

    Aux Etats-Unis, la fin de la neutralité du Net, principe qui interdisait aux opérateurs de télécommunications de discriminer les flux Internet, et que le président Donald Trump a fait abroger en juin, se fait sentir.

    Ainsi, quatre de ces sociétés ont déjà commencé à brider le trafic des services les plus prisés par les internautes — Netflix, Amazon Prime Video, et surtout YouTube, la plate-forme de vidéos gratuites propriété de Google —, selon une recherche menée par l’université Northeastern et l’université du Massachusetts, et révélée par Bloomberg.

    Depuis longtemps, le rêve des opérateurs était de faire passer à la caisse ces grandes plates-formes très consommatrices de bande passante, ce qu’ils n’avaient pas réussi à faire jusqu’à présent. Ces mesures pourraient n’être qu’un premier pas avant une facturation en bonne et due forme.

    Pour mener leurs travaux, les chercheurs ont développé une application, baptisée « Wehe », capable de détecter quand et par qui les services mobiles sont ralentis. Elle a été téléchargée par 100 000 consommateurs ; 500 000 tests ont été menés sur 2 000 services dans 161 pays.
    La nécessité de « bien gérer le réseau »

    Dans le détail, AT&T et Verizon, les deux premiers opérateurs outre-Atlantique, ont discriminé le trafic des services vidéos à respectivement 8 398 et 11 100 reprises. Plus raisonnables, T-Mobile et Sprint s’en sont tenus à 3 900 et 339 ralentissements.

    En août, Verizon a même été surpris en train de brider les connexions des sapeurs-pompiers, qui se battaient contre le plus vaste incendie qu’ait connu la Californie.

    #Neutralité_internet



  • The NSA’s Hidden Spy Hubs in Eight U.S. Cities
    https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs

    The NSA considers AT&T to be one of its most trusted partners and has lauded the company’s “extreme willingness to help.” It is a collaboration that dates back decades. Little known, however, is that its scope is not restricted to AT&T’s customers. According to the NSA’s documents, it values AT&T not only because it “has access to information that transits the nation,” but also because it maintains unique relationships with other phone and internet providers. The NSA exploits these relationships for surveillance purposes, commandeering AT&T’s massive infrastructure and using it as a platform to covertly tap into communications processed by other companies.

    It is an efficient point to conduct internet surveillance, Klein said, “because the peering links, by the nature of the connections, are liable to carry everybody’s traffic at one point or another during the day, or the week, or the year.”

    Christopher Augustine, a spokesperson for the NSA, said in a statement that the agency could “neither confirm nor deny its role in alleged classified intelligence activities.” Augustine declined to answer questions about the AT&T facilities, but said that the NSA “conducts its foreign signals intelligence mission under the legal authorities established by Congress and is bound by both policy and law to protect U.S. persons’ privacy and civil liberties.”

    Jim Greer, an AT&T spokesperson, said that AT&T was “required by law to provide information to government and law enforcement entities by complying with court orders, subpoenas, lawful discovery requests, and other legal requirements.” He added that the company provides “voluntary assistance to law enforcement when a person’s life is in danger and in other immediate, emergency situations. In all cases, we ensure that requests for assistance are valid and that we act in compliance with the law.”

    Dave Schaeffer, CEO of Cogent Communications, told The Intercept that he had no knowledge of the surveillance at the eight AT&T buildings, but said he believed “the core premise that the NSA or some other agency would like to look at traffic … at an AT&T facility.” He said he suspected that the surveillance is likely carried out on “a limited basis,” due to technical and cost constraints. If the NSA were trying to “ubiquitously monitor” data passing across AT&T’s networks, Schaeffer added, he would be “extremely concerned.”

    An estimated 99 percent of the world’s intercontinental internet traffic is transported through hundreds of giant fiber optic cables hidden beneath the world’s oceans. A large portion of the data and communications that pass across the cables is routed at one point through the U.S., partly because of the country’s location – situated between Europe, the Middle East, and Asia – and partly because of the pre-eminence of American internet companies, which provide services to people globally.

    The NSA calls this predicament “home field advantage” – a kind of geographic good fortune. “A target’s phone call, email, or chat will take the cheapest path, not the physically most direct path,” one agency document explains. “Your target’s communications could easily be flowing into and through the U.S.”

    Once the internet traffic arrives on U.S. soil, it is processed by American companies. And that is why, for the NSA, AT&T is so indispensable. The company claims it has one of the world’s most powerful networks, the largest of its kind in the U.S. AT&T routinely handles masses of emails, phone calls, and internet chats. As of March 2018, some 197 petabytes of data – the equivalent of more than 49 trillion pages of text, or 60 billion average-sized mp3 files – traveled across its networks every business day.

    The NSA documents, which come from the trove provided to The Intercept by the whistleblower Edward Snowden, describe AT&T as having been “aggressively involved” in aiding the agency’s surveillance programs. One example of this appears to have taken place at the eight facilities under a classified initiative called SAGUARO.

    In October 2011, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, which approves the surveillance operations carried out under Section 702 of FISA, found that there were “technological limitations” with the agency’s internet eavesdropping equipment. It was “generally incapable of distinguishing” between some kinds of data, the court stated. As a consequence, Judge John D. Bates ruled, the NSA had been intercepting the communications of “non-target United States persons and persons in the United States,” violating Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The ruling, which was declassified in August 2013, concluded that the agency had acquired some 13 million “internet transactions” during one six-month period, and had unlawfully gathered “tens of thousands of wholly domestic communications” each year.

    The root of the issue was that the NSA’s technology was not only targeting communications sent to and from specific surveillance targets. Instead, the agency was sweeping up people’s emails if they had merely mentioned particular information about surveillance targets.

    A top-secret NSA memo about the court’s ruling, which has not been disclosed before, explained that the agency was collecting people’s messages en masse if a single one were found to contain a “selector” – like an email address or phone number – that featured on a target list.

    Information provided by a second former AT&T employee adds to the evidence linking the Atlanta building to NSA surveillance. Mark Klein, a former AT&T technician, alleged in 2006 that the company had allowed the NSA to install surveillance equipment in some of its network hubs. An AT&T facility in Atlanta was one of the spy sites, according to documents Klein presented in a court case over the alleged spying. The Atlanta facility was equipped with “splitter” equipment, which was used to make copies of internet traffic as AT&T’s networks processed it. The copied data would then be diverted to “SG3” equipment – a reference to “Study Group 3” – which was a code name AT&T used for activities related to NSA surveillance, according to evidence in the Klein case.

    #Surveillance #USA #NSA #AT&T


  • The Wiretap Rooms
    https://theintercept.com/2018/06/25/att-internet-nsa-spy-hubs

    The secrets are hidden behind fortified walls in cities across the United States, inside towering windowless skyscrapers and fortress-like concrete structures that were built to withstand earthquakes and even nuclear attack. Thousands of people pass by the buildings each day and rarely give them a second glance, because their function is not publicly known. They are an integral part of one of the world’s largest telecommunications networks – and they are also linked to a controversial (...)

    #AT&T #écoutes #surveillance

    ##AT&T


  • Géolocalisation : la sécurité pas une option pour les données personnelles
    http://www.zdnet.fr/actualites/geolocalisation-la-securite-pas-une-option-pour-les-donnees-personnelles-39868

    LocationSmart recueille les données de localisation en temps réel de millions de clients de la téléphonie cellulaire grâce au concours des opérateurs américains. Problème : une faille de son site Web permet de gélocaliser une personne, sans son consentement. Une vulnérabilité dans le site Web d’une entreprise qui recueille les données de localisation en temps réel de millions de clients de la téléphonie en Amérique du Nord permet à quiconque de voir où se trouve une personne, et bien entendu sans le (...)

    #smartphone #géolocalisation #hacking #LocationSmart #AT&T #Sprint #T-Mobile #Verizon

    ##AT&T


  • A bug in cell phone tracking firm’s website leaked millions of Americans’ real-time locations
    https://www.zdnet.com/article/cell-phone-tracking-firm-exposed-millions-of-americans-real-time-locations

    The bug allowed one Carnegie Mellon researcher to track anyone’s cell phone in real time.

    A company that collects the real-time location data on millions of cell phone customers across North America had a bug in its website that allowed anyone to see where a person is located — without obtaining their consent. Earlier this week, we reported that four of the largest cell giants in the US are selling your real-time location data to a company that you’ve probably never heard about before. The (...)

    #LocationSmart #T-Mobile #Verizon #Sprint #smartphone #géolocalisation #hacking #AT&T

    ##AT&T


  • USA - Iran : Pour faire oublier les dessous de table de trump
    Trump : La couche de fange la plus épaisse Paul Jorion
    https://www.pauljorion.com/blog/2018/05/09/trump-la-couche-de-fange-la-plus-epaisse

    Quand on s’attribue généreusement l’image de celui qui asséchera le bourbier, qui drainera le marécage (« To Drain the Swamp »), le risque que l’on court, c’est que quelqu’un découvre que c’est dans votre propre jardin que la couche de fange est en réalité la plus épaisse.

    Le président #Trump a accepté de courir ce risque et il en récolte aujourd’hui les fruits amers.

    Mercredi de la semaine dernière, le 2 mai, Rudolph Giuliani, ancien maire de New York et candidat malheureux à l’investiture du Parti républicain aux élections présidentielles de 2008, qui venait de rejoindre l’équipe d’avocats de Trump, jetait un pavé dans la mare : « Non, les 130.000 $ de prix du silence versés à l’actrice porno #Stormy_Daniels ne constituaient pas une infraction au financement de la campagne présidentielle : ils avaient été remboursés par #Trump lui-même, par l’intermédiaire de son avocat Michael Cohen, grâce à des versements mensuels d’un montant de 35.000 dollars ».

    Or on apprend aujourd’hui dans un document versé au dossier par l’avocat de Daniels (de son vrai nom Stephanie Clifford), le très haut en couleurs Michael Avenatti (il a couru entre autres les 24 heures du Mans), que d’autres – et en particulier, la compagnie #AT&T – alimentaient par des versements du même ordre de grandeur le compte de Essential Consultants, la coquille créée par Cohen dans l’état du #Delaware, fameux pour son moins-disant juridique, moins de quinze jours avant le premier versement à Clifford.

    La justification des 200.000 $ versés par AT&T : « Obtenir des lumières (insights) quant au fonctionnement de la nouvelle administration », par le truchement de quelqu’un fort bien placé pour connaître ce type d’information : nul autre que l’avocat de Trump lui-même. Aucun rapport donc entre ce versement et l’approbation que la firme cherche à obtenir en ce moment dans sa tentative de prise de contrôle de #Time_Warner_Inc. d’un montant de 85 milliards de dollars, tentative bloquée depuis novembre de l’année dernière par le ministère de la Justice dans le cadre de l’application des lois anti-trust (une décision est attendue le 12 juin). Le principal souci pour les deux cocontractants est sans doute aujourd’hui que le vin au fond du pot ne noie la chandelle dont on espérait la lumière !

    Et AT&T n’était pas seule à verser, entre la fin de l’année dernière et le début de celle-ci, des fonds considérables à l’avocat de Trump. On compte aussi la firme coréenne #Korea_Aerospace_Industries qui s’efforce en ce moment, en concurrence avec l’Américain #Lockheed_Martin, d’obtenir un contrat juteux d’avions de chasse d’essai pour l’US Air Force. Il y avait aussi la firme pharmaceutique suisse #Novartis, qui n’a pas hésité à verser à Essential Consultants, en douze tranches, 1,2 millions de dollars, à l’époque où les paiements dits « de M. Trump » remboursaient son avocat de sa généreuse avance (dont il a affirmé lui, de manière un peu pitoyable, qu’elle était alimentée par une ligne de crédit dont son logement servait de collatéral) .

    Mais ce n’est pas tout : les généreux #donateurs de l’avocat de M. Trump, à l’époque où il s’efforçait de gérer la cupidité d’amantes – ou s’affirmant telles – importunes du Président, comptaient aussi le fonds Columbus Nova, essentiellement financé par l’#oligarque_russe #Viktor_Vekselberg et géré par son cousin #Andrew_Intrater, lequel a offert 250.000 $ comme contribution personnelle au financement de l’inauguration officielle de M. Trump.

    Or Vekselberg est déjà l’objet de sanctions imposées début avril par Robert Mueller dans le cadre de son enquête sur une éventuelle collusion entre la campagne de Trump et la Russie, comme l’interdiction pour lui de se rendre aux États-Unis ou d’y ouvrir un compte en banque. La raison pour laquelle Vekselberg était sanctionné était loin d’être claire à l’époque car il était question surtout d’interférences russes avec la campagne électorale par le biais de la diffusion de propagande populiste, suprématiste, etc. sur les réseaux sociaux.

    Et ceci signifie que ce que nous découvrons aujourd’hui du fait de la diligence d’Avenatti, l’avocat de Stormy Daniels, la commission Mueller le sait déjà depuis le 6 avril, jour où ces sanctions furent prises à l’égard de « sept oligarques russes et douze compagnies dont ils sont les propriétaires ou qu’ils contrôlent, dix-sept fonctionnaires de haut rang du gouvernement russe, ainsi qu’une firme d’État de commerce d’armement et une banque russe, sa filiale. »

    Et l’on comprend mieux du coup a posteriori l’affolement de Trump le 9 avril quand la totalité des dossiers de son avocat Michael Cohen furent saisis dans un raid du #FBI, conjointement chez lui, dans le bureau qu’il occupait dans une firme d’avocats qui rompit immédiatement ses relations avec lui, ainsi que dans la chambre qu’il occupait dans un hôtel durant la rénovation de son domicile.

    La conclusion à tirer, c’est que pour des versements comme des peccadilles du genre 130.000 $ pour faire taire des empêcheurs ou empêcheuses de danser en rond du type Stormy Daniels, les candidats se bousculaient en réalité au portillon, allant d’#oligarques russes à des compagnies américaines à la tête de conglomérats internationaux comme AT&T, et que les #pots-de-vin tombaient comme à #Gravelotte (4,4 millions de dollars versés à Essential Consultants selon le New York Times).

    Ce que les tribulations de tous ces généreux #corrupteurs et #corrompus suggèrent, c’est que tout pays se révèle peut-être une république bananière aussitôt que l’on s’intéresse à la partie immergée de l’iceberg, la différence entre les cas flagrants et les autres n’étant qu’au niveau de la gestion des apparences.

    Quoi qu’il en soit, l’assèchement du bourbier, le « Du balai », ce n’est donc pas Trump qui s’en occupe en réalité, c’est Robert Mueller, et le bourbier s’assèche de jour en jour de lui-même, sans que Mueller doive même dire quoi que ce soit. Et avec un peu de chance, Trump disparaîtra du paysage avant même que celui-ci ne dépose ses conclusions.

    On comprend mieux dans ce contexte l’empressement de Trump ces jours-ci à mettre en application les propositions les plus décervelées de son programme, du genre de sa dénonciation hier du traité avec l’#Iran : l’étau se resserre pour lui, et le temps presse toujours davantage. « J’aurai au moins honoré mes promesses de campagne ! », se dit-il sans doute. Et s’il se retrouve en prison, il aura au moins la satisfaction de ne pas avoir trahi sa base. Laquelle exultera, nul n’en doute, et le portera en triomphe, à sa sortie de Sing-Sing dans quelques dizaines d’années.


  • Iran. « Pas acceptable » que les États-Unis soient le « gendarme » de la planète
    https://www.crashdebug.fr/international/14867-iran-pas-acceptable-que-les-etats-unis-soient-le-gendarme-de-la-pla

    J’espère que ce petit épisode sur l’Iran permettra au commun des mortels d’entrevoir la dictature sans partage qu’exerce les États-unis sur la France et sur le monde… (vidéo ci-dessous)

    Il faut dire que quand on consacre 700 Milliards de dollars par an à son armé ont a quelques arguments...

    Selon Bruno Le Maire, il n’est « pas acceptable » que les États-Unis se placent en « gendarme économique de la planète » après la décision de Donald Trump de rétablir les sanctions visant l’Iran.

    Jugeant que le retrait américain de l’accord nucléaire est « une erreur » pour la sécurité internationale, mais aussi du point de vue économique, Bruno Le Maire a observé que cette décision aurait des « conséquences » pour les entreprises françaises, telles que Total, Sanofi, Renault ou encore Peugeot. « En deux ans, la France a (...)

    • Trump : La couche de fange la plus épaisse Paul Jorion
      https://www.pauljorion.com/blog/2018/05/09/trump-la-couche-de-fange-la-plus-epaisse

      Quand on s’attribue généreusement l’image de celui qui asséchera le bourbier, qui drainera le marécage (« To Drain the Swamp »), le risque que l’on court, c’est que quelqu’un découvre que c’est dans votre propre jardin que la couche de fange est en réalité la plus épaisse.

      Le président #Trump a accepté de courir ce risque et il en récolte aujourd’hui les fruits amers.

      Mercredi de la semaine dernière, le 2 mai, Rudolph Giuliani, ancien maire de New York et candidat malheureux à l’investiture du Parti républicain aux élections présidentielles de 2008, qui venait de rejoindre l’équipe d’avocats de Trump, jetait un pavé dans la mare : « Non, les 130.000 $ de prix du silence versés à l’actrice porno #Stormy_Daniels ne constituaient pas une infraction au financement de la campagne présidentielle : ils avaient été remboursés par #Trump lui-même, par l’intermédiaire de son avocat Michael Cohen, grâce à des versements mensuels d’un montant de 35.000 dollars ».

      Or on apprend aujourd’hui dans un document versé au dossier par l’avocat de Daniels (de son vrai nom Stephanie Clifford), le très haut en couleurs Michael Avenatti (il a couru entre autres les 24 heures du Mans), que d’autres – et en particulier, la compagnie #AT&T – alimentaient par des versements du même ordre de grandeur le compte de Essential Consultants, la coquille créée par Cohen dans l’état du #Delaware, fameux pour son moins-disant juridique, moins de quinze jours avant le premier versement à Clifford.

      La justification des 200.000 $ versés par AT&T : « Obtenir des lumières (insights) quant au fonctionnement de la nouvelle administration », par le truchement de quelqu’un fort bien placé pour connaître ce type d’information : nul autre que l’avocat de Trump lui-même. Aucun rapport donc entre ce versement et l’approbation que la firme cherche à obtenir en ce moment dans sa tentative de prise de contrôle de #Time_Warner_Inc. d’un montant de 85 milliards de dollars, tentative bloquée depuis novembre de l’année dernière par le ministère de la Justice dans le cadre de l’application des lois anti-trust (une décision est attendue le 12 juin). Le principal souci pour les deux cocontractants est sans doute aujourd’hui que le vin au fond du pot ne noie la chandelle dont on espérait la lumière !

      Et AT&T n’était pas seule à verser, entre la fin de l’année dernière et le début de celle-ci, des fonds considérables à l’avocat de Trump. On compte aussi la firme coréenne #Korea_Aerospace_Industries qui s’efforce en ce moment, en concurrence avec l’Américain #Lockheed_Martin, d’obtenir un contrat juteux d’avions de chasse d’essai pour l’US Air Force. Il y avait aussi la firme pharmaceutique suisse #Novartis, qui n’a pas hésité à verser à Essential Consultants, en douze tranches, 1,2 millions de dollars, à l’époque où les paiements dits « de M. Trump » remboursaient son avocat de sa généreuse avance (dont il a affirmé lui, de manière un peu pitoyable, qu’elle était alimentée par une ligne de crédit dont son logement servait de collatéral) .

      Mais ce n’est pas tout : les généreux #donateurs de l’avocat de M. Trump, à l’époque où il s’efforçait de gérer la cupidité d’amantes – ou s’affirmant telles – importunes du Président, comptaient aussi le fonds Columbus Nova, essentiellement financé par l’#oligarque_russe #Viktor_Vekselberg et géré par son cousin #Andrew_Intrater, lequel a offert 250.000 $ comme contribution personnelle au financement de l’inauguration officielle de M. Trump.

      Or Vekselberg est déjà l’objet de sanctions imposées début avril par Robert Mueller dans le cadre de son enquête sur une éventuelle collusion entre la campagne de Trump et la Russie, comme l’interdiction pour lui de se rendre aux États-Unis ou d’y ouvrir un compte en banque. La raison pour laquelle Vekselberg était sanctionné était loin d’être claire à l’époque car il était question surtout d’interférences russes avec la campagne électorale par le biais de la diffusion de propagande populiste, suprématiste, etc. sur les réseaux sociaux.

      Et ceci signifie que ce que nous découvrons aujourd’hui du fait de la diligence d’Avenatti, l’avocat de Stormy Daniels, la commission Mueller le sait déjà depuis le 6 avril, jour où ces sanctions furent prises à l’égard de « sept oligarques russes et douze compagnies dont ils sont les propriétaires ou qu’ils contrôlent, dix-sept fonctionnaires de haut rang du gouvernement russe, ainsi qu’une firme d’État de commerce d’armement et une banque russe, sa filiale. »

      Et l’on comprend mieux du coup a posteriori l’affolement de Trump le 9 avril quand la totalité des dossiers de son avocat Michael Cohen furent saisis dans un raid du #FBI, conjointement chez lui, dans le bureau qu’il occupait dans une firme d’avocats qui rompit immédiatement ses relations avec lui, ainsi que dans la chambre qu’il occupait dans un hôtel durant la rénovation de son domicile.

      La conclusion à tirer, c’est que pour des versements comme des peccadilles du genre 130.000 $ pour faire taire des empêcheurs ou empêcheuses de danser en rond du type Stormy Daniels, les candidats se bousculaient en réalité au portillon, allant d’#oligarques russes à des compagnies américaines à la tête de conglomérats internationaux comme AT&T, et que les #pots-de-vin tombaient comme à #Gravelotte (4,4 millions de dollars versés à Essential Consultants selon le New York Times).

      Ce que les tribulations de tous ces généreux #corrupteurs et #corrompus suggèrent, c’est que tout pays se révèle peut-être une république bananière aussitôt que l’on s’intéresse à la partie immergée de l’iceberg, la différence entre les cas flagrants et les autres n’étant qu’au niveau de la gestion des apparences.

      Quoi qu’il en soit, l’assèchement du bourbier, le « Du balai », ce n’est donc pas Trump qui s’en occupe en réalité, c’est Robert Mueller, et le bourbier s’assèche de jour en jour de lui-même, sans que Mueller doive même dire quoi que ce soit. Et avec un peu de chance, Trump disparaîtra du paysage avant même que celui-ci ne dépose ses conclusions.

      On comprend mieux dans ce contexte l’empressement de Trump ces jours-ci à mettre en application les propositions les plus décervelées de son programme, du genre de sa dénonciation hier du traité avec l’#Iran : l’étau se resserre pour lui, et le temps presse toujours davantage. « J’aurai au moins honoré mes promesses de campagne ! », se dit-il sans doute. Et s’il se retrouve en prison, il aura au moins la satisfaction de ne pas avoir trahi sa base. Laquelle exultera, nul n’en doute, et le portera en triomphe, à sa sortie de Sing-Sing dans quelques dizaines d’années.


  • Opinion | Can Europe Lead on Privacy? - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/01/opinion/europe-privacy-protections.html

    The American government has done little to help us in this regard. The Federal Trade Commission merely requires internet companies to have a privacy policy available for consumers to see. A company can change that policy whenever it wants as long as it says it is doing so. As a result, internet companies have been taking our personal property — our private information — while hiding this fact behind lengthy and coercive legalese and cumbersome “opt out” processes.

    The European rules, for instance, require companies to provide a plain-language description of their information-gathering practices, including how the data is used, as well as have users explicitly “opt in” to having their information collected. The rules also give consumers the right to see what information about them is being held, and the ability to have that information erased.

    Why don’t we have similar protections in the United States? We almost did. In 2016, the Federal Communications Commission imposed similar requirements on the companies that provide internet service, forcing them to offer an explicit “opt in” for having personal data collected, and to protect the information that was collected.

    This didn’t last. Internet service providers like Comcast and AT&T and companies that use their connections, like Facebook and Google, lobbied members of Congress. Congress passed a law this year, signed by President Trump, that not only repealed the protections but also prohibited the F.C.C. from ever again imposing such safeguards. The same coalition of corporate interests succeeded in discouraging California from passing a state privacy law similar to the 2016 F.C.C. requirements.

    The New World must learn from the Old World. The internet economy has made our personal data a corporate commodity. The United States government must return control of that information to its owners.

    Tom Wheeler, the chairman of the Federal Communications Commission from 2013 to 2017, is a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution and a fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School.

    #Vie_privée #RGPD #FCC


  • Should Trump Nationalize a 5G Network? - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/31/opinion/nationalize-5g-network.html

    par Tim Wu

    The White House proposal, which at the moment is just an idea, appears driven by concerns about security threats related to China’s development of 5G networks. But the strongest case for building a national network is different. Done right, a national 5G network could save a lot of Americans a lot of money and revive competition in what has become an entrenched oligopoly. Done wrong, on the other hand, it could look like something out of Hugo Chávez’s disastrous economic playbook.

    Americans spend an extraordinary amount of money on bandwidth. The cable industry is the worst offender: Since cable providers have little effective competition, cable bills have grown at many times the rate of inflation and can easily reach thousands of dollars per year. Mobile phone service is not exactly a bargain, either. And with plans to connect cars, toasters and pets to the internet, broadband bills may continue to soar.

    These bills, collectively, function like a private tax on the whole economy. Could a public 5G network cut that tax?

    A national 5G network would be a kind of 21st-century Tennessee Valley Authority. The government would build or lease towers across the country, prioritizing underserved areas, and set up a public utility that sold bandwidth at cost. This cheap bandwidth would be made available for resale by anyone who wanted to provide home broadband or wireless, thus creating a new business model for small local resellers.

    But the case for a national 5G network comes with two major caveats. First, it has to be done right: A strongman approach — nationalizing AT&T’s and Verizon’s nascent networks instead of building new ones — is too Chávez-esque. Seizing private assets in peacetime without good reason sets a dangerous precedent. And you don’t need to be paranoid to fear the combination of the world’s largest government and largest telecommunication companies. Any federally owned 5G network would need to have privacy protections and be as separate from the political branches as possible.

    The second caveat is that while the government can be good at building things, its management record is less inspiring. Any national network it builds should be government-owned for its first decade or so, and then sold off to the highest bidder.

    #5G #Infrastructure #Economie_numérique


  • Forget About Siri and Alexa — When It Comes to Voice Identification, the “NSA Reigns Supreme”
    https://theintercept.com/2018/01/19/voice-recognition-technology-nsa

    Americans most regularly encounter this technology, known as speaker recognition, or speaker identification, when they wake up Amazon’s Alexa or call their bank. But a decade before voice commands like “Hello Siri” and “OK Google” became common household phrases, the NSA was using speaker recognition to monitor terrorists, politicians, drug lords, spies, and even agency employees.

    The technology works by analyzing the physical and behavioral features that make each person’s voice distinctive, such as the pitch, shape of the mouth, and length of the larynx. An algorithm then creates a dynamic computer model of the individual’s vocal characteristics. This is what’s popularly referred to as a “voiceprint.” The entire process — capturing a few spoken words, turning those words into a voiceprint, and comparing that representation to other “voiceprints” already stored in the database — can happen almost instantaneously. Although the NSA is known to rely on finger and face prints to identify targets, voiceprints, according to a 2008 agency document, are “where NSA reigns supreme.”

    It’s not difficult to see why. By intercepting and recording millions of overseas telephone conversations, video teleconferences, and internet calls — in addition to capturing, with or without warrants, the domestic conversations of Americans — the NSA has built an unrivaled collection of distinct voices. Documents from the Snowden archive reveal that analysts fed some of these recordings to speaker recognition algorithms that could connect individuals to their past utterances, even when they had used unknown phone numbers, secret code words, or multiple languages.

    Civil liberties experts are worried that these and other expanding uses of speaker recognition imperil the right to privacy. “This creates a new intelligence capability and a new capability for abuse,” explained Timothy Edgar, a former White House adviser to the Director of National Intelligence. “Our voice is traveling across all sorts of communication channels where we’re not there. In an age of mass surveillance, this kind of capability has profound implications for all of our privacy.”

    Edgar and other experts pointed to the relatively stable nature of the human voice, which is far more difficult to change or disguise than a name, address, password, phone number, or PIN. This makes it “far easier” to track people, according to Jamie Williams, an attorney with the Electronic Frontier Foundation. “As soon as you can identify someone’s voice,” she said, “you can immediately find them whenever they’re having a conversation, assuming you are recording or listening to it.”

    The voice is a unique and readily accessible biometric: Unlike DNA, it can be collected passively and from a great distance, without a subject’s knowledge or consent.

    It is not publicly known how many domestic communication records the NSA has collected, sampled, or retained. But the EFF’s Jamie Williams pointed out that the NSA would not necessarily have to collect recordings of Americans to make American voiceprints, since private corporations constantly record us. Their sources of audio are only growing. Cars, thermostats, fridges, lightbulbs, and even trash cans have been turning into “intelligent” (that is, internet-equipped) listening devices. The consumer research group Gartner has predicted that a third of our interactions with technology this year will take place through conversations with voice-based systems. Both Google’s and Amazon’s “smart speakers” have recently introduced speaker recognition systems that distinguish between the voices of family members. “Once the companies have it,” Williams said, “law enforcement, in theory, will be able to get it, so long as they have a valid legal process.”

    The former government official noted that raw voice data could be stored with private companies and accessed by the NSA through secret agreements, like the Fairview program, the agency’s partnership with AT&T.

    #Reconnaissance_vocale #Reconnaissance_locuteur #Voiceprint #Surveillance


  • Congress Is Debating Warrantless Surveillance in the Dark
    https://www.wired.com/story/section-702-warrantless-surveillance-debate/%20

    In 2013, former National Security Agency contractor Edward Snowden famously brought to light a series of classified US government spying programs. For the first time, the American people learned that the NSA was collecting millions of their phone calls and electronic communications—emails, Facebook messages, texts, browsing histories—all without a warrant. Several of the programs Snowden revealed are authorized under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Amendments Act. The (...)

    #NSA #Facebook #Upstream #écoutes #web #surveillance #FISA #Google #AT&T

    ##AT&T


  • Henri Verdier Blog : Internet est un bien public essentiel. Nous devons défendre son ouverture et sa neutralité (ou en construire un nouveau)
    http://www.henriverdier.com/2017/12/la-neutralitte-dinternet-bien-public.html

    Ainsi donc, pour finir en beauté la première année du mandat de M. Trump, la FCC (l’agence de régulation des télécommunications aux Etats-Unis, supposée indépendante - comme notre ARCEP-, mais désormais présidée par un proche du président) a décidé de se débarrasser de la neutralité du net. C’est la fête chez l’opérateur Comcast qui célèbre l’événement (et les nouvelles baisses d’impôts) en offrant un bonus de 1000$ à chacun de ses plus de 150.000 salariés. Incidemment, AT&T fait de même mais sans mentionner la décision de la FCC.


  • FCC votes to repeal net neutrality rules, a milestone for Republican deregulation push - LA Times
    http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-20171214-story.html#nws=mcnewsletter
    http://www.trbimg.com/img-5a33280f/turbine/la-fi-net-neutrality-fcc-20171214

    “As a result of today’s misguided action, our broadband providers will get extraordinary new powers,” said Jessica Rosenworcel, one of two Democrats on the five-member FCC who voted against the repeal.

    “They will have the power to block websites, the power to throttle services and the power to censor online content,” she said. “They will have the right to discriminate and favor the internet traffic of those companies with whom they have a pay-for-play arrangement and the right to consign all others to a slow and bumpy road.”
    Protestors Rally At FCC Against Repeal Of Net Neutrality Rules
    Demonstrators rally outside the Federal Communication Commission building Thursday to protest the repeal of net nutrality rules. (Chip Somodevilla / Getty Images)

    The FCC’s net neutrality rules prohibited AT&T Inc., Charter Communications Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and other broadband and wireless internet service providers from selling faster delivery of certain data, slowing speeds for specific video streams and other content, and blocking or otherwise discriminating against any legal online material.

    To enforce the rules, the FCC classified broadband as a more highly regulated utility-like service under Title 2 of federal telecommunications law.

    Telecom companies praised the repeal, while saying they are committed to the principles of net neutrality and have no plans to change their practices.

    The FCC vote “does not mark the ‘end of the Internet as we know it;’ rather it heralds in a new era of light regulation that will benefit consumers,” said David L. Cohen, Comcast’s senior executive vice president.

    But the companies have hedged on whether they would start charging additional fees to transport video streams or other content at a higher speed through their network in a practice known as paid prioritization.

    Pai has said paid prioritization could accelerate the development of autonomous vehicles and home health monitoring, which would need reliably fast service.

    But net neutrality supporters worry telecom companies will set up toll lanes on the internet, cutting deals with some websites to deliver their content faster and squeezing out start-ups and small companies that lack the money to pay for faster service.

    #Neutralité_internet


  • Disney buys much of Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox in deal that will reshape Hollywood - LA Times
    http://www.latimes.com/business/hollywood/la-fi-ct-disney-fox-sale-20171214-story.html
    http://www.trbimg.com/img-5a3283f9/turbine/la-fi-ct-disney-fox-sale-20171214

    We’re honored and grateful that Rupert Murdoch has entrusted us with the future of businesses he spent a lifetime building, and we’re excited about this extraordinary opportunity to significantly increase our portfolio of well-loved franchises and branded content to greatly enhance our growing direct-to-consumer offerings,” Iger said in a statement.

    “The deal will also substantially expand our international reach, allowing us to offer world-class storytelling and innovative distribution platforms to more consumers in key markets around the world,” Iger said.

    Disney’s determination to marshal resources is the clearest signal of heightening tensions between technology giants and legacy media. After decades of dominance, Disney, Time Warner, Fox, CBS and NBCUniversal have been scrambling to bulk up to withstand the gale forces coming from Google, Facebook, Netflix, Apple and Amazon.com, which have pushed into television production and distribution.
    Disney’s deal to buy Fox studio could bring substantial layoffs, analysts say

    Audiences for traditional television have been shrinking, in part, because viewers have so many options, including big-budget shows available through Netflix and Amazon. Movie attendance has stagnated. And Netflix is stepping up its output of films, roiling that business along with television.

    “The lingering tensions between traditional media and digital platforms has devolved into an open war,” media analyst Michael Nathanson said in a research note. “It has become increasingly difficult for [film] studios to break through the clutter of high-quality TV options in the home.”

    Buying Fox would continue the transformation of Disney, which began when Iger took the helm in 2005. He engineered a series of savvy acquisitions, starting with the 2006 purchase of Pixar Animation Studios — creator of “Toy Story,” and “Finding Nemo” — which reinvigorated Disney’s moribund animation division. The company then bought Marvel Entertainment in 2009 and Lucasfilm in 2012, betting big on marquee film brands such as “Star Wars.”

    Then came a shift. This year, Disney spent $1.6 billion to gain a majority stake in BamTech, an online streaming platform that Disney plans to use to launch two streaming services in the next two years, including an ESPN service next year. Disney decided its future was in selling its shows and sports channels directly to consumers. That meant taking on Netflix.

    “The core underlying driver for this deal … is the impending battle royale for content and streaming services vs. the Netflix machine,” Daniel Ives, head of technology research for GBH Insights, said in a recent report. The “appetite for content among media companies [is] reaching a feverish pitch.”

    A Disney-branded streaming service, set to launch in 2019, will have more firepower with Fox’s assets. Disney would gain 22 regional Fox Sports networks, which could help entice more sports fans to sign up for the proposed ESPN streaming services if the service eventually includes access to Los Angeles Kings, San Diego Padres or New York Yankees games.

    Wall Street isn’t sure whether the U.S. Justice Department would bless the combination. It would reduce Hollywood’s television and movie production capacity by eliminating one of the major studios.

    The Justice Department’s antitrust division is suing to block AT&T’s proposed $85-billion takeover of Time Warner, which includes HBO, CNN, TBS, Cartoon Network and the Warner Bros. film and TV studio.

    #Disney #Concentration #Vectorialisme


  • What Will Really Happen if the FCC Abandons Net Neutrality ?
    http://knowledge.wharton.upenn.edu/article/net-neutrality-debate

    Article intéressant parce qu’il donne la parole aux opposants à la neutralité. Mais à trop vouloir jouer au centre, on finit par prendre le point de vue des dominants.

    Supporters often link net neutrality to free speech and unfettered, equal access to the internet. They also want stricter rules to curb the conduct of ISPs. “Removal of the net neutrality rules could entirely take down the internet as a free and open source of information,” said Jennifer Golbeck, a professor at the University of Maryland, on the Knowledge@Wharton show on SiriusXM channel 111. “It’s going to be more corporate control over the content we see … potentially not just favoring things that benefit [ISPs] financially but favoring them politically.”

    But critics say that too much regulation dampens innovation and investments in the internet, which has thrived for decades without formal net neutrality rules. For example, net neutrality would tamp down on innovations such as T-Mobile’s “Binge On” service, which lets customers stream video from Netflix, YouTube, Hulu and other sites without counting it against their data buckets, said Christopher Yoo, professor of law, communication and computer and information science at the University of Pennsylvania, on the radio show. Moreover, the order brings back the FTC as the antitrust enforcer of ISP behavior, protecting consumer interests and banning deceptive business practices. (Listen to a podcast of the radio show featuring Yoo and Golbeck using the player above.)

    As providers of information services, ISPs were much more lightly regulated than telecommunications services — such as the old Ma Bell. However, the FCC did adopt policies to preserve free internet access and usage and curb abuses. In 2004, FCC Chairman Michael Powell under President George W. Bush set out four principles of internet freedom: the freedom to access lawful content, use applications, attach personal devices to the network and obtain service plan information.

    In 2010, under Obama’s first FCC chairman, Julius Genachowski, the agency’s Open Internet Order adopted anti-blocking and anti-discrimination rules after finding out that Comcast throttled BitTorrent, a bandwidth-intensive, peer-to-peer site where users shared files of TV shows, movies or other content. Faulhaber says Comcast made the mistake of “targeting a particular upstream company. That you can’t do. If you want to control traffic, you have to do it in a much less discriminatory way.”

    But the 2010 order, which also required ISPs to disclose their network management practices, performance and commercial terms, was vacated by a federal court in 2014 after Verizon sued the FCC. The court said the FCC did not have the authority to act because ISPs are not regulated like common telephone carriers.

    This ruling led to the 2015 order by Wheeler that reclassified ISPs like landline phone companies, giving the agency the power to regulate many things, including prices set by broadband providers, although this was set aside. The order also specified the no-blocking and no-discrimination of traffic, and banned paid prioritization, which would give faster internet lanes to companies that pay for it. And it crafted internet conduct standards that ISPs must follow. Last year, an appellate court upheld this order.

    The current proposal by Pai rolls back Wheeler’s order, and more. It classifies ISPs back under information services. It allows paid prioritization. It also punts the policing of any ISP blocking and discriminatory behavior to the FTC to be investigated on a case-by-case basis. It dismantles Wheeler’s internet conduct standards because they are “vague and expansive.” But the proposed order does adopt transparency rules, requiring ISPs to disclose information about their practices to the FCC and the public.

    For ISPs, the issue is not so much net neutrality as it is about Title II. “All of the major ISPs like Comcast and AT&T are on the record saying that they support the idea of net neutrality, but they just oppose the legal classification of broadband as a regulated telecommunications service,” Werbach says. “I wouldn’t expect to see any dramatic changes in the companies’ practices near term. They’re going to wait and see how this all plays out, and they’re also not going to do something that will provoke significant backlash and pressure for more regulation.”

    During her radio show appearance, Golbeck noted that the danger of fast lanes is that smaller websites that cannot afford to pay the ISP could be left behind. Research shows that “even delays of less than a second in serving up content [will make people] bail from your site and go someplace else.” Conversely, she said, if ISPs speed up access to popular sites like Amazon and Netflix because they pay, “it inhibits the ability for other new startup sites to compete.”

    #Neutralité_internet


  • The 265 members of Congress who sold you out to ISPs, and how much it cost to buy them
    https://www.theverge.com/2017/3/29/15100620/congress-fcc-isp-web-browsing-privacy-fire-sale

    They betrayed you for chump change Republicans in Congress just voted to reverse a landmark FCC privacy rule that opens the door for ISPs to sell customer data. Lawmakers provided no credible reason for this being in the interest of Americans, except for vague platitudes about “consumer choice” and “free markets,” as if consumers at the mercy of their local internet monopoly are craving to have their web history quietly sold to marketers and any other third party willing to pay. The only (...)

    #Comcast #Verizon #AT&T #données #lobbying #profiling #FCC

    ##AT&T


  • The Internet Is Dying. Repealing Net Neutrality Hastens That Death. - The New York Times
    https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/technology/internet-dying-repeal-net-neutrality.html

    Because net neutrality shelters start-ups — which can’t easily pay for fast-line access — from internet giants that can pay, the rules are just about the last bulwark against the complete corporate takeover of much of online life. When the rules go, the internet will still work, but it will look like and feel like something else altogether — a network in which business development deals, rather than innovation, determine what you experience, a network that feels much more like cable TV than the technological Wild West that gave you Napster and Netflix.

    If this sounds alarmist, consider that the state of digital competition is already pretty sorry. As I’ve argued regularly, much of the tech industry is at risk of getting swallowed by giants. Today’s internet is lousy with gatekeepers, tollbooths and monopolists.

    The five most valuable American companies — Amazon, Apple, Facebook, Google and Microsoft — control much of the online infrastructure, from app stores to operating systems to cloud storage to nearly all of the online ad business. A handful of broadband companies — AT&T, Charter, Comcast and Verizon, many of which are also aiming to become content companies, because why not — provide virtually all the internet connections to American homes and smartphones.

    Together these giants have carved the internet into a historically profitable system of fiefs. They have turned a network whose very promise was endless innovation into one stuck in mud, where every start-up is at the tender mercy of some of the largest corporations on the planet.

    This was not the way the internet was supposed to go. At its deepest technical level, the internet was designed to avoid the central points of control that now command it. The technical scheme arose from an even deeper philosophy. The designers of the internet understood that communications networks gain new powers through their end nodes — that is, through the new devices and services that plug into the network, rather than the computers that manage traffic on the network. This is known as the “end-to-end” principle of network design, and it basically explains why the internet led to so many more innovations than the centralized networks that came before it, such as the old telephone network.

    But if flexibility was the early internet’s promise, it was soon imperiled. In 2003, Tim Wu, a law professor now at Columbia Law School (he’s also a contributor to The New York Times), saw signs of impending corporate control over the growing internet. Broadband companies that were investing great sums to roll out faster and faster internet service to Americans were becoming wary of running an anything-goes network.

    To Mr. Wu, the broadband monopolies looked like a threat to the end-to-end idea that had powered the internet. In a legal journal, he outlined an idea for regulation to preserve the internet’s equal-opportunity design — and hence was born “net neutrality.”

    Though it has been through a barrage of legal challenges and resurrections, some form of net neutrality has been the governing regime on the internet since 2005. The new F.C.C. order would undo the idea completely; companies would be allowed to block or demand payment for certain traffic as they liked, as long as they disclosed the arrangements.

    But look, you might say: Despite the hand-wringing, the internet has kept on trucking. Start-ups are still getting funded and going public. Crazy new things still sometimes get invented and defy all expectations; Bitcoin, which is as Wild West as they come, just hit $10,000 on some exchanges.

    Well, O.K. But a vibrant network doesn’t die all at once. It takes time and neglect; it grows weaker by the day, but imperceptibly, so that one day we are living in a digital world controlled by giants and we come to regard the whole thing as normal.

    It’s not normal. It wasn’t always this way. The internet doesn’t have to be a corporate playground. That’s just the path we’ve chosen.

    #Neutralité_internet #Vectorialisme


  • The Geopolitical Economy of the Global Internet Infrastructure on JSTOR
    https://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5325/jinfopoli.7.2017.0228

    Article très intéressant qui repositionne les Etats dans la gestion de l’infrastructure globale de l’internet. En fait, une infrastructure globale pour le déploiement du capital (une autre approche de la géopolitique, issue de David Harvey).

    According to many observers, economic globalization and the liberalization of telecoms/internet policy have remade the world in the image of the United States. The dominant roles of Amazon, Apple, Facebook, and Google have also led to charges of US internet imperialism. This article, however, argues that while these internet giants dominate some of the most popular internet services, the ownership and control of core elements of the internet infrastructure—submarine cables, internet exchange points, autonomous system numbers, datacenters, and so on—are tilting increasingly toward the EU and BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa) countries and the rest of the world, complicating views of hegemonic US control of the internet and what Susan Strange calls the knowledge structure.

    This article takes a different tack. It argues that while US-based internet giants do dominate some of the middle and top layers of the internet—for example, operating systems (iOS, Windows, Android), search engines (Google), social networks (Facebook), online retailing (Amazon), over-the-top TV (Netflix), browsers (Google Chrome, Apple Safari, Microsoft Explorer), and domain names (ICANN)—they do not rule the hardware, or material infrastructure, upon which the internet and daily life, business, governments, society, and war increasingly depend. In fact, as the article shows, ownership and control of many core elements of the global internet infrastructure—for example, fiber optic submarine cables, content delivery networks (CDNs), autonomous system numbers (ASN), and internet exchange points (IXPs)—are tilting toward the rest of the world, especially Europe and the BRICS (i.e., Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa). This reflects the fact that the United States’ standing in the world is slipping while an ever more multipolar world is arising.

    International internet backbone providers, internet content companies, and CDNs interconnect with local ISPs and at one or more of the nearly 2000 IXPs around the world. The largest IXPs are in New York, London, Amsterdam, Frankfurt, Seattle, Chicago, Moscow, Sao Paulo, Tokyo, and Hong Kong. They are core elements of the internet that switch traffic between all the various networks that comprise the internet system, and help to establish accessible, affordable, fast, and secure internet service.

    In developed markets, internet companies such as Google, Baidu, Facebook, Netflix, Youku, and Yandex use IXPs to interconnect with local ISPs such as Deutsche Telecoms in Germany, BT or Virgin Media in Britain, or Comcast in the United States to gain last-mile access to their customers—and vice versa, back up the chain. Indeed, 99 percent of internet traffic handled by peering arrangements among such parties occurs without any money changing hands or a formal contract.50 Where IXPs do not exist or are rare, as in Africa, or run poorly, as in India, the cost of bandwidth is far more expensive. This is a key factor that helps to explain why internet service is so expensive in areas of the world that can least afford it. It is also why the OECD and EU encourage developing countries to make IXPs a cornerstone of economic development and telecoms policy work.

    The network of networks that make up the internet constitute a sprawling, general purpose platform upon which financial markets, business, and trade, as well as diplomacy, spying, national security, and war depend. The world’s largest electronic payments system operator, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunications’ (SWIFT) secure messaging network carries over 25 million messages a day involving payments that are believed to be worth over $7 trillion USD.59 Likewise, the world’s biggest foreign currency settlement system, the CLS Bank, executes upward of a million trades a day worth between $1.5 and $2.5 trillion over the global cable systems—although that is down by half from its high point in 2008.60 As Stephen Malphrus, former chief of staff to the US Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, observed, when “communications networks go down, the financial services sector does not grind to a halt, rather it snaps to a halt.”61

    Governments and militaries also account for a significant portion of internet traffic. Indeed, 90 to 95 percent of US government traffic, including sensitive diplomatic and military orders, travels over privately owned cables to reach officials in the field.62 “A major portion of DoD data traveling on undersea cables is unmanned aerial vehicle video,” notes a study done for the Department of Homeland Security by MIT scholar Michael Sechrist.63 Indeed, the Department of Defense’s entire Global Information Grid shares space in these cables with the general public internet.64

    The 3.6 billion people as of early 2016 who use the internet to communicate, share music, ideas and knowledge, browse, upload videos, tweet, blog, organize social events and political protests, watch pornography, read sacred texts, and sell stuff are having the greatest influence on the current phase of internet infrastructure development. Video currently makes up an estimated two-thirds of all internet traffic, and is expected to grow to 80 percent in the next five years,69 with US firms leading the way. Netflix single-handedly accounts for a third of all internet traffic. YouTube is the second largest source of internet traffic on fixed and mobile networks alike the world over. Altogether, the big five internet giants account for roughly half of all “prime-time” internet traffic, a phrasing that deliberately reflects the fact that internet usage swells and peaks at the same time as the classic prime-time television period, that is, 7 p.m. to 11 p.m.

    Importance des investissements des compagnies de l’internet dans les projets de câbles.

    Several things stand out from this analysis. First, in less than a decade, Google has carved out a very large place for itself through its ownership role in four of the six projects (the SJC, Faster, Unity, and Pacific Cable Light initiatives), while Facebook has stakes in two of them (APG and PLCN) and Microsoft in the PLCN project. This is a relatively new trend and one that should be watched in the years ahead.

    A preliminary view based on the publicly available information is that the US internet companies are important but subordinate players in consortia dominated by state-owned national carriers and a few relatively new competitors. Keen to wrest control of core elements of the internet infrastructure that they perceive to have been excessively dominated by United States interests in the past, Asian governments and private investors have joined forces to change things in their favor. In terms of the geopolitical economy of the internet, there is both a shift toward the Asia-Pacific region and an increased role for national governments.

    Return of the State as Regulator of Concentrated Markets

    In addition to the expanded role of the state as market builder, regulator, and information infrastructure policy maker, many regulators have also rediscovered the reality of significant market concentration in the telecom-internet and media industries. Indeed, the US government has rejected several high-profile telecoms mergers in recent years, such as AT&T’s proposal to take over T-Mobile in 2011, T-Mobile’s bid for Sprint in 2014, and Comcast’s attempt to acquire Time Warner Cable last year. Even the approval of Comcast’s blockbuster takeover of NBC Universal in 2011, and Charter Communications acquisition of Time Warner Cable last year, respectively, came with important strings attached and ongoing conduct regulation designed to constrain the companies’ ability to abuse their dominant market power.87 The FCC’s landmark 2016 ruling to reclassify broadband internet access as a common carrier further indicated that US regulators have been alert to the realities of market concentration and telecoms-internet access providers’ capacity to abuse that power, and the need to maintain a vigilant eye to ensure that their practices do not swamp people’s rights to freely express themselves, maintain control over the collection, retention, use, and disclosure of their personal information, and to access a diverse range of services over the internet.88 The 28 members of the European Union, along with Norway, India, and Chile, have adopted similar “common carriage/network neutrality/open network”89 rules to offset the reality that concentration in core elements of these industries is “astonishingly high”90 on the basis of commonly used indicators (e.g., concentration ratios and the Herfindahl–Hirschman Index).

    These developments indicate a new phase in internet governance and control. In the first phase, circa the 1990s, technical experts and organizations such as the Internet Engineers Task Force played a large role, while the state sat relatively passively on the sidelines. In the second phase, circa the early to mid-2000s, commercial forces surged to the fore, while internet governance revolved around the ICANN and the multi-stakeholder model. Finally, the revelations of mass internet surveillance by many states and ongoing disputes over the multi-stakeholder, “internet freedom” agenda on the one side, versus the national sovereignty, multilateral model where the ITU and UN system would play a larger role in internet governance all indicate that significant moves are afoot where the relationship between states and markets is now in a heightened state of flux.

    Such claims, however, are overdrawn. They rely too heavily on the same old “realist,” “struggle for control” model where conflict between nation-states has loomed large and business interests and communication technologies served mainly as “weapons of politics” and the handmaidens of national interests from the telegraph in the nineteenth century to the internet today. Yet, nation-states and private business interests, then and now, not only compete with one another but also cooperate extensively to cultivate a common global space of economic accumulation. Communication technologies and business interests, moreover, often act independent of the nation-state and via “private structures of cooperation,” that is, cartels and consortia, as the history and contemporary state of the undersea cable networks illustrate. In fact, the internet infrastructure of the twenty-first century, much like that of the industrial information infrastructure of the past 150 years, is still primarily financed, owned, and operated by many multinational consortia, although more than a few submarine communications cables are now owned by a relatively new roster of competitive players, such as Tata, Level 3, Global Cloud Xchange, and so forth. They have arisen mostly in the last 20 years and from new quarters, such as India in the case of Tata, for example.

    #Economie_numérique #Géopolitique #Câbles_sous_marins