14 ms·

Victory for Net Neutrality in Europe

547 points by jrepin 10y ago

gourou 10y ago
These were the guidelines from November 2015 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120&from=en http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...
- happy_tentacles 10y ago
  The two arguments presented - to keep a legal path for a higher priority routing - during late 2015 Trilogue Negotiations that framed the directive the way it is: Driverless cars Medical applications (remote operations rooms were mentioned) You have to give to telecoms - they built the infrastructure and are desperate to design some services that could become additional source of revenues. For now, it seems, the door is shut - maybe with the new automation coming they could dig it up - akin to "you don't want your house to send fire warning to city grid too slow, do you?".
nothis 10y ago
Disappointingly little concrete information of what's in now, anyone knows how to read these things and skimmed the original text? I heard that EU "net neutrality" is disappointlngly vague. I see providers offering free data for things like Spotify, which, in my understanding, is exactly what net neutrality should prevent.
- a_bonobo 10y ago
  I think there will be more concrete information in the next few days, as the proposal is a bit long, you can find it here: http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/regulatory_best_practices/guidelines/6160-berec-guidelines-on-the-implementation-by-national-regulators-of-european-net-neutrality-rules http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/... But it starts well: >This Regulation aims to establish common rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of internet access services and related end-users’ rights. It aims to protect end-users and simultaneously to guarantee the continued functioning of the internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation.
- mtgx 10y ago
  Yeah, there were some potential issues around "specialized services", zero-rating, "traffic class-based discrimination", and "impending congestion", which prompted a campaign to fix them, but it seems the creators of the campaign also seem pretty excited about the result now: https://savetheinternet.eu/en/ https://savetheinternet.eu/en/ However, according to Julia Reda above, the policies around zero-rating are still pretty unclear, and it seems they will be decided on a case-by-case basis (not great, but may be a little better than in the U.S., where the FCC seems to have no interest in dealing with zero rating at all).
- k-mcgrady 10y ago
  >> "I see providers offering free data for things like Spotify" Any source for this? I've only ever seen providers offer free Spotify membership, not free data. Edit: Thanks for the responses. I had no idea this was happening.
  - petepete 10y ago
    Here's one not from the EU, but Switzerland https://www.engadget.com/2013/01/21/spotify-signs-deal-with-orange-switzerland/ https://www.engadget.com/2013/01/21/spotify-signs-deal-with-...
  - ORioN63 10y ago
    From Portugal: http://www.wtf.pt/ http://www.wtf.pt/ Look for "APPS COM TRÁFEGO ILIMITADO" (Free data apps). You can see the apps below. or http://www.yorn.net/YORN/tarifario/yorn-x/index.htm#apps http://www.yorn.net/YORN/tarifario/yorn-x/index.htm#apps I'm not even sure it's legal, but people don't really care/see it as a problem.
  - swinglock 10y ago
    Swedens I believe largest operators 3 and Telia has unlimited or a large amount of data that doesn't count towards the usual data limits when using specially selected services such as Spotify and Facebook.
    - K0nserv 10y ago
      Telia also attached a condition that you had to promise to be nice on the internet and not practice "näthat"(net hate). Not joking either, they were then very unresponsive to criticism and questioning of their stance on net neutrality.
  - lorenzhs 10y ago
    T-mobile used to do this in Germany until earlier this month. In their FAQ [1], they state that the following in spotify count against customers' data plan: videos, album covers, sharing, and Spotify's "discovery" feature. They add a flat 100MB to the data plan to cover that. Note that the streaming of music is not included, so it doesn't count towards data usage. They stopped offering this to new customers on August 2nd, 2016. [1] https://www.telekom.de/hilfe/mobilfunk-mobiles-internet/mobiles-internet-e-mail/apps/spotify/datenvolumen-belastung https://www.telekom.de/hilfe/mobilfunk-mobiles-internet/mobi... (in German)
- FT_intern 10y ago
  of course, Spotify isn't an american company
- pjc50 10y ago
  I think you have to click through to the PDF at the side of http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/regulatory_best_practices/guidelines/6160-berec-guidelines-on-the-implementation-by-national-regulators-of-european-net-neutrality-rules http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/... It does cover this (search for zero-rating) although in a way that I find hard to summarise.
smb06 10y ago
Facebook tried to introduce "Free Basics" in Angola after its failed attempts at doing so in India. Good to see similar efforts being made in Angola to educate about Net Neutrality as well. Maybe they can use some takeaway from the above ruling. Source: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-fre...
thr0waway1239 10y ago
I once heard an interview with the Economist digital editor Tom Standage where he claims (at 5:45 into the interview) that net neutrality is the wrong thing to focus on, and the important thing is just making sure there is more competition between the telcos. Can someone more familiar with this issue tell me if this argument is correct? https://www.podcat.com/podcasts/i63zqo-untether-tv-mobile-strategy-and-tactics-audio-pervasive-computing-internet-of-things/episodes/2j53su-why-the-economist-launched-their-daily-smartphone-app-espresso-with-digital-editor-tom-standage https://www.podcat.com/podcasts/i63zqo-untether-tv-mobile-st...
- kartan 10y ago
  The argument doesn't makes sense. When a normal citizen is choosing her internet provider they are not going to expend a lot of time looking at the implications of their decision. If the services is cheap enough and has the thing that they usually use then they are done. Competition can easy bring cheaper services but hardly can bring improving in long term needs. That's why we have laws that forbid companies to pollute the environment, restrict child labor and the like. Consumers will choose the short term benefits for themselves over the long term benefits for the society.
  - jomamaxx 10y ago
    "The argument doesn't makes sense. When a normal citizen is choosing her internet provider they are not going to expend a lot of time looking at the implications of their decision." I think you're missing the implication of the point. If there is 'a lot of competition' - it makes cartel-like or colluding behaviour among carriers difficult, thereby facilitating de-facto net-neutrality. Customers don't have to be aware of it. And it's a reasonable argument: ensuring healthy and fair competition is almost always better than legislative controls, usually because regulations are often poorly conceived and effectuated, or at least, the market changes rapidly and the regulations fail to adapt. I think that a reasonable net-neutrality law should probably be made both in Europe and in the US, that said, I'm weary of it being too onerous. My position is also pragmatic: 'more competition' is unlikely in an industry with such massive barriers to entry etc..
tajen 10y ago
Next fight : That ISPs advertise the minimum guaranteed bandwidth and are banned from advertising the maximum theoretical number. Then only we could measure that they do offer the same bandwidth with Netflix and Vimeo as they advertise. Net neutrality at its best. Edit: Of course the number will be very low because they have to (God forbid!) provision their network to serve this bandwidth to all customers during peak hours. But what we're looking for is not a huge number - we're looking for a number that allows meaningful comparison with competitors.
- elorant 10y ago
  Second that. Furthermore it would be nice if they could have a map with mean bandwidth per region. If the infrastructure allows it everyone should receive the same service as long as they pay the same fee. We need more information in this matter and only legislation will get us there. ISPs are anything but transparent.
- heinrichhartman 10y ago
  That's not likely going to happen nore is it a sensible thing to ask for. As an ISP how would you _guarantee_ the bandwidth for each endpoint? You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge waste! What's sensible to ask ISPs to do is: (a) Communicate historically experienced bandwith at each region (b) Provided certified, standartized measurement facilities (software / hardware?!) that can be used to monitor of the link utilization/saturation levels. (d) Refund policy, when agreed service level targets (as measured in b) were not hit. (This should be legally mandated)
  - DasIch 10y ago
    At the moment at least in Germany you have ISPs advertising bandwidths and even selling contracts with bandwidth that can never be reached not because they don't have the capacity but because it's not possible to reach them given the technology in the ground. We're currently in place that is completely unacceptable towards customers. Now you don't have to go completely in the other direction but when you advertise and sell someone a contract involving a certain amount of bandwidth, you should have to provide that 99% of the time modulo schedule downtime. I think that would be perfectly achievable and fair to ISPs and it wouldn't require them to provision for maximal capacity either. I mean it's not like you should be able to sue them into the ground when they only manage 89.9999% or something.
jkingsbery 10y ago
I don't understand how it's "progress" to move decisions from a small number of bureaucracies to a single, less accountable bureaucracy.
- programmarchy 10y ago
  Oh but the neoliberal corporatist elite have our best interests at heart, you see.
- esturk 10y ago
  Because no where does it imply progress. 'Victory' could very well mean maintaining the status quo.
- heinrichhartman 10y ago
  The same argument could be made against the US federal government. Two points: (A) unified legislation is tremendoulsy important for trade/business (B) larger associations have far more influence than small ones.
- hx87 10y ago
  It's "progress" when the larger bureaucracy is harder to regulatorily capture, if only because in larger jurisdictions there are more competitors.
  - smsm42 10y ago
    > larger bureaucracy is harder to regulatorily capture The example of US federal government does not exactly support this point.
    - hx87 10y ago
      It does when you compare it to state and municipal governments.
      - smsm42 10y ago
headmelted 10y ago
It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. And this is why Brexit is so heart-breaking. I'm surrounded by people in my personal life who think it's a fantastic idea, but they're not the most... informed? Likewise for local politicians. (Side note to my rant: I have this theory that the rise of the iPhone, and the fact that it is such a big part of people's lives now, has fooled regular folks into believing that they're experts on technology. I have no more than anecdotal evidence for this). I strongly suspect that local legislators will see no conflict whatsoever with scrapping these laws when the exit finally comes, and it saddens me that I'm surrounded by a lot of people that will be cheering when it happens. This is from a real conversation I had this week: "What it boils down to is do you want to have us control our own laws and decisions and borders, or have to take orders from some bureaucrat in Brussels that doesn't understand us?" Yes, I would rather have decisions made by people in Brussels that understand what they're doing.
- freshflowers 10y ago
  Ironically, the same issue is exactly why I, as a citizen of the Netherlands, support leaving the EU. Because even at this point, Net Neutrality is still less well protected by the EU than it was under our own national legislation. I cannot in all good conscience support a union that has the power to undermine our civil rights. If Brits don't want those civil rights, that's their choice. Brussels is not a force for good simply because in this case it would be an improvement for the Brits.
  - ZenoArrow 10y ago
    I agree with your general sentiment, but wonder where you get the idea that Britain is somewhat backward when it comes to civil rights. Whilst challenges to civil rights will continue to exist and be resisted, it should be noted that the European Convention on Human Rights was influenced by the UK's approach to civil rights: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human... If you have concrete examples of poor civil rights in the UK, by all means share them, I'm not pretending things are perfect here, and would be happy to get a better grasp of where things could be improved.
secfirstmd 10y ago
Irish phone companies are also doing the same: Meteor http://www.killbiller.com/blog/2016/6/16/free-facebook-instagram-and-twitter-data-from-meteor-mobile http://www.killbiller.com/blog/2016/6/16/free-facebook-insta... Eir: https://www.siliconrepublic.com/life/eir-meteor-mobile-social-unlimited-twitter-facebook-instagram https://www.siliconrepublic.com/life/eir-meteor-mobile-socia...
libman 10y ago
Any victory for socialist "Net Neutrality" is a loss for Internet Freedom.
- daveloyall 10y ago
  This is supposed to be about keeping the medium itself impartial. When we converse in person, the medium (air) doesn't discriminate. Let's have a 'Net like that. What are you talking about?
  - libman 10y ago
    You are trusting Hitler and Stalin to keep the Internet free. http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/18/net-neutrality-nonsense http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/18/net-neutrality-nonsens... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_again...
daveloyall 10y ago
For your convenience, here's just the text "in the boxes" (the Recitals), from http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/6160-berec-guidelines-on-the-implementation-b_0.pdf http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/... These are the first 9, the other 10 are here: https://gist.github.com/daveloyall/a1112bb70412d77bebc8090906769498 https://gist.github.com/daveloyall/a1112bb70412d77bebc809090... Recital 1 ========= This Regulation aims to establish common rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of internet access services and related end-users’ rights. It aims to protect end-users and simultaneously to guarantee the continued functioning of the internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. Recital 2 ========= The measures provided for in this Regulation respect the principle of technological neutrality, that is to say they neither impose nor discriminate in favour of the use of a particular type of technology. Recital 3 ========= The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of internet access services. The existing regulatory framework aims to promote the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. However, a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications or services. Those tendencies require common rules at the Union level to ensure the openness of the internet and to avoid fragmentation of the internal market resulting from measures adopted by individual Member States. Recital 4 ========= An internet access service provides access to the internet, and in principle to all the end-points thereof, irrespective of the network technology and terminal equipment used by end-users. However, for reasons outside the control of providers of internet access services, certain end points of the internet may not always be accessible. Therefore, such providers should be deemed to have complied with their obligations related to the provision of an internet access service within the meaning of this Regulation when that service provides connectivity to virtually all end points of the internet. Providers of internet access services should therefore not restrict connectivity to any accessible end-points of the internet. Recital 5 ========= When accessing the internet, end-users should be free to choose between various types of terminal equipment as defined in Commission Directive 2008/63/EC (1). Providers of internet access services should not impose restrictions on the use of terminal equipment connecting to the network in addition to those imposed by manufacturers or distributors of terminal equipment in accordance with Union law. Recital 6 ========= End-users should have the right to access and distribute information and content, and to use and provide applications and services without discrimination, via their internet access service. The exercise of this right should be without prejudice to Union law, or national law that complies with Union law, regarding the lawfulness of content, applications or services. This Regulation does not seek to regulate the lawfulness of the content, applications or services, nor does it seek to regulate the procedures, requirements and safeguards related thereto. Those matters therefore remain subject to Union law, or national law that complies with Union law. Recital 7 ========= In order to exercise their rights to access and distribute information and content and to use and provide applications and services of their choice, end-users should be free to agree with providers of internet access services on tariffs for specific data volumes and speeds of the internet access service. Such agreements, as well as any commercial practices of providers of internet access services, should not limit the exercise of those rights and thus circumvent provisions of this Regulation safeguarding open internet access. National regulatory and other competent authorities should be empowered to intervene against agreements or commercial practices which, by reason of their scale, lead to situations where end-users’ choice is materially reduced in practice. To this end, the assessment of agreements and commercial practices should, inter alia, take into account the respective market positions of those providers of internet access services, and of the providers of content, applications and services, that are involved. National regulatory and other competent authorities should be required, as part of their monitoring and enforcement function, to intervene when agreements or commercial practices would result in the undermining of the essence of the end-users’ rights. Recital 8 ========= When providing internet access services, providers of those services should treat all traffic equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independently of its sender or receiver, content, application or service, or terminal equipment. According to general principles of Union law and settled case-law, comparable situations should not be treated differently and different situations should not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. Recital 9 ========= The objective of reasonable traffic management is to contribute to an efficient use of network resources and to an optimisation of overall transmission quality responding to the objectively different technical quality of service requirements of specific categories of traffic, and thus of the content, applications and services transmitted. Reasonable traffic management measures applied by providers of internet access services should be transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate, and should not be based on commercial considerations. The requirement for traffic management measures to be non-discriminatory does not preclude providers of internet access services from implementing, in order to optimise the overall transmission quality, traffic management measures which differentiate between objectively different categories of traffic. Any such differentiation should, in order to optimise overall quality and user experience, be permitted only on the basis of objectively different technical quality of service requirements (for example, in terms of latency, jitter, packet loss, and bandwidth) of the specific categories of traffic, and not on the basis of commercial considerations. Such differentiating measures should be proportionate in relation to the purpose of overall quality optimisation and should treat equivalent traffic equally. Such measures should not be maintained for longer than necessary.
kleiba 10y ago
"It has to be noted with regret that it was not our digital Commissioner Günther Oettinger who listened to the people and defended an internet not biased towards big corporate interests [...]" That would hardly have been expected: in the first six months of being a Commissioner, Oettinger met with two NGO representatives but with 44 corporate lobbyists [1]. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/guenther-oettinger-und-lobbyismus-eu-kommissar-trifft-selten-ngos-a-1040147.html http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/guenther-oettinger...
soci 10y ago
As always, devil is in the details. If you look at the fine print in the published "Guidelines for implementing Net Neutratily" [1] linked in the article you will see that there are 3 exceptions to the rule (a,b,c). Being "c" the one that should fear us most: EXCEPTIONS a) "comply with Union legislative acts (...) -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, of services provided via that network, and of the terminal equipment of end-users; -> meaning that in order to guarantee the security of the network Net Neutrality may be avoided. I'm so-so on this one. c) prevent impending network congestion and mitigate the effects of exceptional or temporary network congestion, provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally. -> Meaning that ISPs can throttle specific categories of traffic at their own will. This last one ruins the whole law. And this is not what me as European wanted. ISPs won :( [1] http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/6160-berec-guidelines-on-the-implementation-b_0.pdf http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/... [EDIT] typos
- reitanqild 10y ago
  IMO, IANAL > -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. It would be weird for a court to order anyone to break net neutrality. > -> meaning that in order to guarantee the security of the network Net Neutrality may be avoided. I'm so-so on this one. The intention here seems to be to allow (D)DOS attack mitigation etc. > -> Meaning that ISPs can throttle specific categories of traffic at their own will. Note that the law is very clear that this only is allowed "provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally."
  - komali2 10y ago
    "Comcast video streaming service is not in the same category as Netflix, Hulu because...." Back to square 1.
    - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
      Nope; that would simply be challenged in court.
vegabook 10y ago
Bravo EU! Sure I see that there are plenty of commented caveats, but coming within 24 hours of a 14 billion dollar retroactive tax bill for one of the world's most opportunistic tax dodgers, I cannot help but have good faith towards this announcement. Here is the only bloc, globally, that actually seems to care about individuals versus corporations, with unequivocal and demonstrated evidence of said motivations. I've been fed a diet of "useless, corrupt, 'Brussels' bureaucrats" ever since I moved to Britain (which, as an aside, today disgracefully tried to woo AAPL with the anti-tax red carpet). But all I actually see, is a bunch of people, bureaucrats perhaps, but who are trying to look out for me . Today I say, Hurrah EU! Thank you Julia Reda.
IMRelentless1 10y ago
any thoughts on Obama handing over the DNS directory to the UN?
IMRelentless1 10y ago
Any thoughts on Obama handing over the DNS directory to the UN?
vikascoder 10y ago
How about Clothing neutrality? :)

547 points by jrepin 10y ago

These were the guidelines from November 2015 http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:32015R2120&from=en http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX...

happy_tentacles 10y ago
The two arguments presented - to keep a legal path for a higher priority routing - during late 2015 Trilogue Negotiations that framed the directive the way it is: Driverless cars Medical applications (remote operations rooms were mentioned) You have to give to telecoms - they built the infrastructure and are desperate to design some services that could become additional source of revenues. For now, it seems, the door is shut - maybe with the new automation coming they could dig it up - akin to "you don't want your house to send fire warning to city grid too slow, do you?".

nothis 10y ago

Disappointingly little concrete information of what's in now, anyone knows how to read these things and skimmed the original text? I heard that EU "net neutrality" is disappointlngly vague. I see providers offering free data for things like Spotify, which, in my understanding, is exactly what net neutrality should prevent.

a_bonobo 10y ago
I think there will be more concrete information in the next few days, as the proposal is a bit long, you can find it here: http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/regulatory_best_practices/guidelines/6160-berec-guidelines-on-the-implementation-by-national-regulators-of-european-net-neutrality-rules http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/... But it starts well: >This Regulation aims to establish common rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of internet access services and related end-users’ rights. It aims to protect end-users and simultaneously to guarantee the continued functioning of the internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation.
mtgx 10y ago
Yeah, there were some potential issues around "specialized services", zero-rating, "traffic class-based discrimination", and "impending congestion", which prompted a campaign to fix them, but it seems the creators of the campaign also seem pretty excited about the result now: https://savetheinternet.eu/en/ https://savetheinternet.eu/en/ However, according to Julia Reda above, the policies around zero-rating are still pretty unclear, and it seems they will be decided on a case-by-case basis (not great, but may be a little better than in the U.S., where the FCC seems to have no interest in dealing with zero rating at all).
k-mcgrady 10y ago
>> "I see providers offering free data for things like Spotify" Any source for this? I've only ever seen providers offer free Spotify membership, not free data. Edit: Thanks for the responses. I had no idea this was happening.
- petepete 10y ago
  Here's one not from the EU, but Switzerland https://www.engadget.com/2013/01/21/spotify-signs-deal-with-orange-switzerland/ https://www.engadget.com/2013/01/21/spotify-signs-deal-with-...
- ORioN63 10y ago
  From Portugal: http://www.wtf.pt/ http://www.wtf.pt/ Look for "APPS COM TRÁFEGO ILIMITADO" (Free data apps). You can see the apps below. or http://www.yorn.net/YORN/tarifario/yorn-x/index.htm#apps http://www.yorn.net/YORN/tarifario/yorn-x/index.htm#apps I'm not even sure it's legal, but people don't really care/see it as a problem.
- swinglock 10y ago
  Swedens I believe largest operators 3 and Telia has unlimited or a large amount of data that doesn't count towards the usual data limits when using specially selected services such as Spotify and Facebook.
  - K0nserv 10y ago
    Telia also attached a condition that you had to promise to be nice on the internet and not practice "näthat"(net hate). Not joking either, they were then very unresponsive to criticism and questioning of their stance on net neutrality.
- lorenzhs 10y ago
  T-mobile used to do this in Germany until earlier this month. In their FAQ [1], they state that the following in spotify count against customers' data plan: videos, album covers, sharing, and Spotify's "discovery" feature. They add a flat 100MB to the data plan to cover that. Note that the streaming of music is not included, so it doesn't count towards data usage. They stopped offering this to new customers on August 2nd, 2016. [1] https://www.telekom.de/hilfe/mobilfunk-mobiles-internet/mobiles-internet-e-mail/apps/spotify/datenvolumen-belastung https://www.telekom.de/hilfe/mobilfunk-mobiles-internet/mobi... (in German)
FT_intern 10y ago
of course, Spotify isn't an american company
pjc50 10y ago
I think you have to click through to the PDF at the side of http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/regulatory_best_practices/guidelines/6160-berec-guidelines-on-the-implementation-by-national-regulators-of-european-net-neutrality-rules http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/... It does cover this (search for zero-rating) although in a way that I find hard to summarise.

smb06 10y ago

Facebook tried to introduce "Free Basics" in Angola after its failed attempts at doing so in India. Good to see similar efforts being made in Angola to educate about Net Neutrality as well. Maybe they can use some takeaway from the above ruling. Source: http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-free-basics-angola-pirates-zero-rating http://motherboard.vice.com/read/wikipedia-zero-facebook-fre...

thr0waway1239 10y ago

I once heard an interview with the Economist digital editor Tom Standage where he claims (at 5:45 into the interview) that net neutrality is the wrong thing to focus on, and the important thing is just making sure there is more competition between the telcos. Can someone more familiar with this issue tell me if this argument is correct? https://www.podcat.com/podcasts/i63zqo-untether-tv-mobile-strategy-and-tactics-audio-pervasive-computing-internet-of-things/episodes/2j53su-why-the-economist-launched-their-daily-smartphone-app-espresso-with-digital-editor-tom-standage https://www.podcat.com/podcasts/i63zqo-untether-tv-mobile-st...

kartan 10y ago
The argument doesn't makes sense. When a normal citizen is choosing her internet provider they are not going to expend a lot of time looking at the implications of their decision. If the services is cheap enough and has the thing that they usually use then they are done. Competition can easy bring cheaper services but hardly can bring improving in long term needs. That's why we have laws that forbid companies to pollute the environment, restrict child labor and the like. Consumers will choose the short term benefits for themselves over the long term benefits for the society.
- jomamaxx 10y ago
  "The argument doesn't makes sense. When a normal citizen is choosing her internet provider they are not going to expend a lot of time looking at the implications of their decision." I think you're missing the implication of the point. If there is 'a lot of competition' - it makes cartel-like or colluding behaviour among carriers difficult, thereby facilitating de-facto net-neutrality. Customers don't have to be aware of it. And it's a reasonable argument: ensuring healthy and fair competition is almost always better than legislative controls, usually because regulations are often poorly conceived and effectuated, or at least, the market changes rapidly and the regulations fail to adapt. I think that a reasonable net-neutrality law should probably be made both in Europe and in the US, that said, I'm weary of it being too onerous. My position is also pragmatic: 'more competition' is unlikely in an industry with such massive barriers to entry etc..

tajen 10y ago

Next fight : That ISPs advertise the minimum guaranteed bandwidth and are banned from advertising the maximum theoretical number. Then only we could measure that they do offer the same bandwidth with Netflix and Vimeo as they advertise. Net neutrality at its best. Edit: Of course the number will be very low because they have to (God forbid!) provision their network to serve this bandwidth to all customers during peak hours. But what we're looking for is not a huge number - we're looking for a number that allows meaningful comparison with competitors.

elorant 10y ago
Second that. Furthermore it would be nice if they could have a map with mean bandwidth per region. If the infrastructure allows it everyone should receive the same service as long as they pay the same fee. We need more information in this matter and only legislation will get us there. ISPs are anything but transparent.
heinrichhartman 10y ago
That's not likely going to happen nore is it a sensible thing to ask for. As an ISP how would you _guarantee_ the bandwidth for each endpoint? You would have to provision for the maximal capacity all over your network. Given that most people only utilize their channel 1% of the time, this is a huge waste! What's sensible to ask ISPs to do is: (a) Communicate historically experienced bandwith at each region (b) Provided certified, standartized measurement facilities (software / hardware?!) that can be used to monitor of the link utilization/saturation levels. (d) Refund policy, when agreed service level targets (as measured in b) were not hit. (This should be legally mandated)
- DasIch 10y ago
  At the moment at least in Germany you have ISPs advertising bandwidths and even selling contracts with bandwidth that can never be reached not because they don't have the capacity but because it's not possible to reach them given the technology in the ground. We're currently in place that is completely unacceptable towards customers. Now you don't have to go completely in the other direction but when you advertise and sell someone a contract involving a certain amount of bandwidth, you should have to provide that 99% of the time modulo schedule downtime. I think that would be perfectly achievable and fair to ISPs and it wouldn't require them to provision for maximal capacity either. I mean it's not like you should be able to sue them into the ground when they only manage 89.9999% or something.

jkingsbery 10y ago

I don't understand how it's "progress" to move decisions from a small number of bureaucracies to a single, less accountable bureaucracy.

programmarchy 10y ago
Oh but the neoliberal corporatist elite have our best interests at heart, you see.
esturk 10y ago
Because no where does it imply progress. 'Victory' could very well mean maintaining the status quo.
heinrichhartman 10y ago
The same argument could be made against the US federal government. Two points: (A) unified legislation is tremendoulsy important for trade/business (B) larger associations have far more influence than small ones.
hx87 10y ago
It's "progress" when the larger bureaucracy is harder to regulatorily capture, if only because in larger jurisdictions there are more competitors.
- smsm42 10y ago
  > larger bureaucracy is harder to regulatorily capture The example of US federal government does not exactly support this point.
  - hx87 10y ago
    It does when you compare it to state and municipal governments.
    - smsm42 10y ago

headmelted 10y ago

It encourages me to see that the European court at least has some people on it that seem to understand that net neutrality is in fact a human rights issue. And this is why Brexit is so heart-breaking. I'm surrounded by people in my personal life who think it's a fantastic idea, but they're not the most... informed? Likewise for local politicians. (Side note to my rant: I have this theory that the rise of the iPhone, and the fact that it is such a big part of people's lives now, has fooled regular folks into believing that they're experts on technology. I have no more than anecdotal evidence for this). I strongly suspect that local legislators will see no conflict whatsoever with scrapping these laws when the exit finally comes, and it saddens me that I'm surrounded by a lot of people that will be cheering when it happens. This is from a real conversation I had this week: "What it boils down to is do you want to have us control our own laws and decisions and borders, or have to take orders from some bureaucrat in Brussels that doesn't understand us?" Yes, I would rather have decisions made by people in Brussels that understand what they're doing.

freshflowers 10y ago
Ironically, the same issue is exactly why I, as a citizen of the Netherlands, support leaving the EU. Because even at this point, Net Neutrality is still less well protected by the EU than it was under our own national legislation. I cannot in all good conscience support a union that has the power to undermine our civil rights. If Brits don't want those civil rights, that's their choice. Brussels is not a force for good simply because in this case it would be an improvement for the Brits.
- ZenoArrow 10y ago
  I agree with your general sentiment, but wonder where you get the idea that Britain is somewhat backward when it comes to civil rights. Whilst challenges to civil rights will continue to exist and be resisted, it should be noted that the European Convention on Human Rights was influenced by the UK's approach to civil rights: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human... If you have concrete examples of poor civil rights in the UK, by all means share them, I'm not pretending things are perfect here, and would be happy to get a better grasp of where things could be improved.

secfirstmd 10y ago

Irish phone companies are also doing the same: Meteor http://www.killbiller.com/blog/2016/6/16/free-facebook-instagram-and-twitter-data-from-meteor-mobile http://www.killbiller.com/blog/2016/6/16/free-facebook-insta... Eir: https://www.siliconrepublic.com/life/eir-meteor-mobile-social-unlimited-twitter-facebook-instagram https://www.siliconrepublic.com/life/eir-meteor-mobile-socia...

libman 10y ago

Any victory for socialist "Net Neutrality" is a loss for Internet Freedom.

daveloyall 10y ago
This is supposed to be about keeping the medium itself impartial. When we converse in person, the medium (air) doesn't discriminate. Let's have a 'Net like that. What are you talking about?
- libman 10y ago
  You are trusting Hitler and Stalin to keep the Internet free. http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/18/net-neutrality-nonsense http://reason.com/archives/2014/05/18/net-neutrality-nonsens... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_against https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Net_neutrality#Arguments_again...

daveloyall 10y ago

For your convenience, here's just the text "in the boxes" (the Recitals), from http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/6160-berec-guidelines-on-the-implementation-b_0.pdf http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/... These are the first 9, the other 10 are here: https://gist.github.com/daveloyall/a1112bb70412d77bebc8090906769498 https://gist.github.com/daveloyall/a1112bb70412d77bebc809090... Recital 1 ========= This Regulation aims to establish common rules to safeguard equal and non-discriminatory treatment of traffic in the provision of internet access services and related end-users’ rights. It aims to protect end-users and simultaneously to guarantee the continued functioning of the internet ecosystem as an engine of innovation. Recital 2 ========= The measures provided for in this Regulation respect the principle of technological neutrality, that is to say they neither impose nor discriminate in favour of the use of a particular type of technology. Recital 3 ========= The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of internet access services. The existing regulatory framework aims to promote the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. However, a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications or services. Those tendencies require common rules at the Union level to ensure the openness of the internet and to avoid fragmentation of the internal market resulting from measures adopted by individual Member States. Recital 4 ========= An internet access service provides access to the internet, and in principle to all the end-points thereof, irrespective of the network technology and terminal equipment used by end-users. However, for reasons outside the control of providers of internet access services, certain end points of the internet may not always be accessible. Therefore, such providers should be deemed to have complied with their obligations related to the provision of an internet access service within the meaning of this Regulation when that service provides connectivity to virtually all end points of the internet. Providers of internet access services should therefore not restrict connectivity to any accessible end-points of the internet. Recital 5 ========= When accessing the internet, end-users should be free to choose between various types of terminal equipment as defined in Commission Directive 2008/63/EC (1). Providers of internet access services should not impose restrictions on the use of terminal equipment connecting to the network in addition to those imposed by manufacturers or distributors of terminal equipment in accordance with Union law. Recital 6 ========= End-users should have the right to access and distribute information and content, and to use and provide applications and services without discrimination, via their internet access service. The exercise of this right should be without prejudice to Union law, or national law that complies with Union law, regarding the lawfulness of content, applications or services. This Regulation does not seek to regulate the lawfulness of the content, applications or services, nor does it seek to regulate the procedures, requirements and safeguards related thereto. Those matters therefore remain subject to Union law, or national law that complies with Union law. Recital 7 ========= In order to exercise their rights to access and distribute information and content and to use and provide applications and services of their choice, end-users should be free to agree with providers of internet access services on tariffs for specific data volumes and speeds of the internet access service. Such agreements, as well as any commercial practices of providers of internet access services, should not limit the exercise of those rights and thus circumvent provisions of this Regulation safeguarding open internet access. National regulatory and other competent authorities should be empowered to intervene against agreements or commercial practices which, by reason of their scale, lead to situations where end-users’ choice is materially reduced in practice. To this end, the assessment of agreements and commercial practices should, inter alia, take into account the respective market positions of those providers of internet access services, and of the providers of content, applications and services, that are involved. National regulatory and other competent authorities should be required, as part of their monitoring and enforcement function, to intervene when agreements or commercial practices would result in the undermining of the essence of the end-users’ rights. Recital 8 ========= When providing internet access services, providers of those services should treat all traffic equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independently of its sender or receiver, content, application or service, or terminal equipment. According to general principles of Union law and settled case-law, comparable situations should not be treated differently and different situations should not be treated in the same way unless such treatment is objectively justified. Recital 9 ========= The objective of reasonable traffic management is to contribute to an efficient use of network resources and to an optimisation of overall transmission quality responding to the objectively different technical quality of service requirements of specific categories of traffic, and thus of the content, applications and services transmitted. Reasonable traffic management measures applied by providers of internet access services should be transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate, and should not be based on commercial considerations. The requirement for traffic management measures to be non-discriminatory does not preclude providers of internet access services from implementing, in order to optimise the overall transmission quality, traffic management measures which differentiate between objectively different categories of traffic. Any such differentiation should, in order to optimise overall quality and user experience, be permitted only on the basis of objectively different technical quality of service requirements (for example, in terms of latency, jitter, packet loss, and bandwidth) of the specific categories of traffic, and not on the basis of commercial considerations. Such differentiating measures should be proportionate in relation to the purpose of overall quality optimisation and should treat equivalent traffic equally. Such measures should not be maintained for longer than necessary.

kleiba 10y ago

"It has to be noted with regret that it was not our digital Commissioner Günther Oettinger who listened to the people and defended an internet not biased towards big corporate interests [...]" That would hardly have been expected: in the first six months of being a Commissioner, Oettinger met with two NGO representatives but with 44 corporate lobbyists [1]. [1] http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/guenther-oettinger-und-lobbyismus-eu-kommissar-trifft-selten-ngos-a-1040147.html http://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/soziales/guenther-oettinger...

soci 10y ago

As always, devil is in the details. If you look at the fine print in the published "Guidelines for implementing Net Neutratily" [1] linked in the article you will see that there are 3 exceptions to the rule (a,b,c). Being "c" the one that should fear us most: EXCEPTIONS a) "comply with Union legislative acts (...) -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, of services provided via that network, and of the terminal equipment of end-users; -> meaning that in order to guarantee the security of the network Net Neutrality may be avoided. I'm so-so on this one. c) prevent impending network congestion and mitigate the effects of exceptional or temporary network congestion, provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally. -> Meaning that ISPs can throttle specific categories of traffic at their own will. This last one ruins the whole law. And this is not what me as European wanted. ISPs won :( [1] http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/berec/download/0/6160-berec-guidelines-on-the-implementation-b_0.pdf http://berec.europa.eu/eng/document_register/subject_matter/... [EDIT] typos

reitanqild 10y ago
IMO, IANAL > -> meaning that a court order can change Net Neutrality, hmmm ok. It would be weird for a court to order anyone to break net neutrality. > -> meaning that in order to guarantee the security of the network Net Neutrality may be avoided. I'm so-so on this one. The intention here seems to be to allow (D)DOS attack mitigation etc. > -> Meaning that ISPs can throttle specific categories of traffic at their own will. Note that the law is very clear that this only is allowed "provided that equivalent categories of traffic are treated equally."
- komali2 10y ago
  "Comcast video streaming service is not in the same category as Netflix, Hulu because...." Back to square 1.
  - WilliamDhalgren 10y ago
    Nope; that would simply be challenged in court.

vegabook 10y ago

Bravo EU! Sure I see that there are plenty of commented caveats, but coming within 24 hours of a 14 billion dollar retroactive tax bill for one of the world's most opportunistic tax dodgers, I cannot help but have good faith towards this announcement. Here is the only bloc, globally, that actually seems to care about individuals versus corporations, with unequivocal and demonstrated evidence of said motivations. I've been fed a diet of "useless, corrupt, 'Brussels' bureaucrats" ever since I moved to Britain (which, as an aside, today disgracefully tried to woo AAPL with the anti-tax red carpet). But all I actually see, is a bunch of people, bureaucrats perhaps, but who are trying to look out for me . Today I say, Hurrah EU! Thank you Julia Reda.

IMRelentless1 10y ago

any thoughts on Obama handing over the DNS directory to the UN?

IMRelentless1 10y ago

Any thoughts on Obama handing over the DNS directory to the UN?

vikascoder 10y ago

How about Clothing neutrality? :)