4 ms·

For reference, here's the official press release: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bIM-PRESS%2b20140318IPR39210%2b0%2

For reference, here's the official press release: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2fEP%2f%2fTEXT%2bIM-PRESS%2b20140318IPR39210%2b0%2bDOC%2bXML%2bV0%2f%2fEN&language=EN http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-%2f%2f... yes, the headline is "Net neutrality: Industry MEPs want stricter rules against blocking rival services" which contradicts the translated headline above. I think it all revolves around these two lines: >> MEPs inserted strict rules to prevent telecoms companies from degrading or blocking internet connections to their competitors’ services and applications and >> Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers On balance, it doesn't seem like net 'neutrality' will be as badly eroded as in the U.S.

Qantourisc 13y ago
As usual I think the politicians fail to see/understand again how this can epically backfire: Example: Google pays your ISP to be faster then the competition. Now the ISP has a free "specialized service", and competition goes down.
- Retric 13y ago
  I agree that it's less than ideal but an ISP can always get priority access to there internal network because it's closer to there customers. As long as they need to slow down the entire internet rather than slowing down service X then a customer will complain to the ISP that the internet is slow vs thinking service X is slow. It prevents optimizing things like speed test.net which is vary common.
  - Qantourisc 13y ago
    Not when you only have a few high-bandwith providers for some content. One will be the faster then the normal-speed rest. But the consumer will see this as service X is slow, and the fastest one is best.
    - Retric 13y ago
      If you have a low latency 20mibt connection to the internet then ALL video is fast. Below that you might have a point. However, this says an ISP can only change bandwidth and latency so if you allow one high bandwidth activity say downloading MMO's then must allow all high bandwidth activity. If you have low latency for gaming then you also have low latency for websites etc. Sure, an ISP may simply chose not to offer high bandwidth to the internet but that's a much harder sell to there customers. And long term laws can change if companies start abusing them.
      - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
        > If you have a low latency 20mibt connection to the internet then ALL video is fast. Just because they sell you a 20Mbit connection doesn't mean you'll always get 20Mbit out of it. Suppose that during peak hours you only get 4Mbit because the ISP's uplink is saturated. Obviously customers would complain...unless the ISP offers extremely low prices to Google, Dropbox, Netflix, etc. to get them all on the pay to play plan and bypass the bottleneck. If the sites 90% of the customers use 90% of the time are fast, the customers will blame the remaining sites for being slow, which forces the sites to pay the ISP. Meanwhile the ISP can raise prices on existing "customers" like Netflix one at a time until they're all paying monopoly rents to the ISP.
- masklinn 13y ago
  Comments on a previous discussion[0] noted that the bill's qualification of "specialised service" wouldn't allow for that: > (15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service; [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7415885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7415885
zz1 13y ago
A plenary session of the parlament will vote on this April 3rd. The day after the parlament will stop all activities because of the upcomings European elections. YOU can urge them to make a difference, YOU can ask them to protect net neutrality. Contact them, call them, mail them, fax them, ask them to represent you, to stand for you for your interests and your freedom, and not for telcos. Save the internet: http://savetheinternet.eu/ http://savetheinternet.eu/ If you want context: until now S&D and Greens proved to be pro net neutrality, EPP against and ALDE spoke pro net neutrality but voted against. Another press release about the vote: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-dangerous-loopholes-remain-after-key-vote-by-lead-eu-parliament-committee http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-dangerous-loop... Finally take a stand, raise your voice and ask your candidates and future representatives to defend your digital rights by signing this manifesto and asking your politician to do the same: http://www.wepromise.eu/ http://www.wepromise.eu/
- Brakenshire 13y ago
  > ALDE spoke pro net neutrality but voted against. To be fair, the initial proposal from the Commission was atrocious, and ALDE have played a good role in a massive redrafting which has made it a pretty okay piece of legislation. They only voted against the last amendments (from Catherine Trautmann). It's worth campaigning for those amendments to be adopted, but you need to adopt the right tone when talking to ALDE members.

Qantourisc 13y ago

As usual I think the politicians fail to see/understand again how this can epically backfire: Example: Google pays your ISP to be faster then the competition. Now the ISP has a free "specialized service", and competition goes down.

Retric 13y ago
I agree that it's less than ideal but an ISP can always get priority access to there internal network because it's closer to there customers. As long as they need to slow down the entire internet rather than slowing down service X then a customer will complain to the ISP that the internet is slow vs thinking service X is slow. It prevents optimizing things like speed test.net which is vary common.
- Qantourisc 13y ago
  Not when you only have a few high-bandwith providers for some content. One will be the faster then the normal-speed rest. But the consumer will see this as service X is slow, and the fastest one is best.
  - Retric 13y ago
    If you have a low latency 20mibt connection to the internet then ALL video is fast. Below that you might have a point. However, this says an ISP can only change bandwidth and latency so if you allow one high bandwidth activity say downloading MMO's then must allow all high bandwidth activity. If you have low latency for gaming then you also have low latency for websites etc. Sure, an ISP may simply chose not to offer high bandwidth to the internet but that's a much harder sell to there customers. And long term laws can change if companies start abusing them.
    - AnthonyMouse 13y ago
      > If you have a low latency 20mibt connection to the internet then ALL video is fast. Just because they sell you a 20Mbit connection doesn't mean you'll always get 20Mbit out of it. Suppose that during peak hours you only get 4Mbit because the ISP's uplink is saturated. Obviously customers would complain...unless the ISP offers extremely low prices to Google, Dropbox, Netflix, etc. to get them all on the pay to play plan and bypass the bottleneck. If the sites 90% of the customers use 90% of the time are fast, the customers will blame the remaining sites for being slow, which forces the sites to pay the ISP. Meanwhile the ISP can raise prices on existing "customers" like Netflix one at a time until they're all paying monopoly rents to the ISP.
masklinn 13y ago
Comments on a previous discussion[0] noted that the bill's qualification of "specialised service" wouldn't allow for that: > (15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service; [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7415885 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7415885

zz1 13y ago

A plenary session of the parlament will vote on this April 3rd. The day after the parlament will stop all activities because of the upcomings European elections. YOU can urge them to make a difference, YOU can ask them to protect net neutrality. Contact them, call them, mail them, fax them, ask them to represent you, to stand for you for your interests and your freedom, and not for telcos. Save the internet: http://savetheinternet.eu/ http://savetheinternet.eu/ If you want context: until now S&D and Greens proved to be pro net neutrality, EPP against and ALDE spoke pro net neutrality but voted against. Another press release about the vote: http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-dangerous-loopholes-remain-after-key-vote-by-lead-eu-parliament-committee http://www.laquadrature.net/en/net-neutrality-dangerous-loop... Finally take a stand, raise your voice and ask your candidates and future representatives to defend your digital rights by signing this manifesto and asking your politician to do the same: http://www.wepromise.eu/ http://www.wepromise.eu/

Brakenshire 13y ago
> ALDE spoke pro net neutrality but voted against. To be fair, the initial proposal from the Commission was atrocious, and ALDE have played a good role in a massive redrafting which has made it a pretty okay piece of legislation. They only voted against the last amendments (from Catherine Trautmann). It's worth campaigning for those amendments to be adopted, but you need to adopt the right tone when talking to ALDE members.