Threat To Net Neutrality In Europe

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Threat To Net Neutrality In Europe

Posted by ScuttleMonkey on Monday April 20, 2009 @08:11AM from the wishing-for-transparency-in-government dept.

Narcissus writes to tell us that the European Parliament is planning a vote in the Industry, Transport, Energy (ITRE) committee that could reintroduce amendment 138 (currently amendment 46) which deals with safeguards to user rights on the internet and graduated response schemes. There are several online campaigns trying to drive awareness and action already but there is limited time to act. "The Council may propose a compromise version of amendment 138/46 that is completely neutralized, or that may even become the opposite of the original by allowing the 'three strikes' scheme instead of preventing it. According to the latest negotiations, am.138/46 wouldn't anymore be an article (that must be transposed by Member States in their law) but a mere recital that has just indicative value. It is urgent to contact the members of the ITRE committee to advise them to reject compromise with the Council that failed to respect the intent of the original amendment. The best would be once again to approve the amendment."

30 of 147 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Give it Up! by Virtucon · 2009-04-20 08:15 · Score: 5, Insightful

As long as carriers can set their own policies for traffic carried across networks that they own, Net Neutrality is a dead topic.
Free Enterprise dictates that the carriers have the right to price services according to market demand. If your carrier starts adopting tiered pricing or starts prioritizing your traffic in ways that it sees fit, then let your feet do the walking to another carrier.
Free Markets do eventually work their way around to providing the services people want for the price they're willing to pay.

--
Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
1. Re:Give it Up! by notarockstar1979 · 2009-04-20 08:28 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Voting with your feet assumes that the market is healthy enough to have other carriers that don't practice the exact same thing you're trying to get away from. I'm not in Europe, so the outcome of this does not DIRECTLY affect me. I just like playing devil's advocate some days.
2. Re:Give it Up! by damburger · 2009-04-20 08:33 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Yeah, because free markets did such a good job with the banking industry.
  The rational equilibrium model of the free market fundamentalists has gone tits up. Move on, and wise up. Collusion, misinformation, and group think are quite capable of doing for the IT sector what they have done for the financial sector.
  There needs to be citizen participation in both politics and economics. Economies are not worthwhile aims in themselves, they are merely tools we use to coordinate society - whenever they don't work for people, we should seek to change them.
  
  --
  If we can put a man on the moon, why can't we shoot people for Apollo-related non-sequiturs?
3. Re:Give it Up! by Virtucon · 2009-04-20 08:40 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  I have at least 3 hard-wired choices to my home, both high speed. There's at least 4 3G wireless carriers I can deal with so I think I do have some choice at least where I'm at, so YMMV. I do agree that there needs to be a healthy market though but why then do we in the US give monopolies to companies that just run cables to your house or buy a set of frequencies? To give them incentives to build out the infrastructure. I believe that that system needs to change a bit and only allow them full monopoly power over that investment for a certain period of time.
  If you look at Time Warner's recent "Tiered" evaluation flop you can see that people can and do influence these decisions as well.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
4. Re:Give it Up! by Hognoxious · 2009-04-20 08:47 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  Everyone in Belgium has three choices too. They're Belgacom, Belgacom in disguise and Belgacom in a different disguise.
  This is completely illegal under EU law, which is made less than ten minutes walk from Belgacom's HQ.
  
  --
  Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
5. Re:Give it Up! by Virtucon · 2009-04-20 08:47 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  I have Cable, Fiber and Twisted Pair all going across my "Easement" on my land. The Easement was granted in my Deed to the City so yes there's a civic responsibility to allow for valid utility concerns to use that Easement to provide services for the community. That doesn't however prohibit multiple companies from putting in their own cabling infrastructure just becase somebody else did it already. The providers have paid the city, paid the contractors and bought the cable and fiber. They own that infrastructure. Now, should they be allowed to permit other competitors to use that "last mile" to my house? I think they should be allowed to after a certain amount of time, say 5 years. AFAIK the AT&T Ruling by Judge Green for example allowed "Dark Fiber" to be leased for example from the AT&T infrastructure. I can't see why Verizon wouldn't fall under that same thought with their "FIOS" infrastructure as well allowing another carrier say AT&T to use it for their U-Verse services.
  Now, once the traffic is on those networks, I believe that it should be treated equally but it's their network that you're paying for. If you don't like the service, complain, get it changed or go to another carrier. It's that last mile that has you locked into accepting terms that you may not like.
  
  --
  Harrison's Postulate - "For every action there is an equal and opposite criticism"
6. Re:Give it Up! by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 08:59 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  >>>Yeah, because free markets did such a good job with the banking industry.
  Not a free market. It's controlled by the *monopoly* called the Reserve Bank, which is itself controlled by the Congress, which mandated in the mid-1990s that banks must hand-out "no money down" loans. That eventually led to the housing crisis. That is not a free market. That's an oligarchy of 535 men.
  A true free market would not have a Reserve Bank setting interest rates, but instead have interest rates that are set by each independent bank, and these rates would move up-and-down with supply-and-demand. Furthermore Congress would allow banks to decide for themselves who qualifies and who does not qualify for loans, based on income.
  Yes that means some would hear the word "no". Oh well.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
7. Re:Give it Up! by joocemann · 2009-04-20 09:51 · Score: 2
  
  What you say is true, but there is an overall flaw in this slashdot topic.
  There is a big difference between a 'threat to net neutrality' and an approach to dealing with 'graduated response' to ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.
  Net Neutrality doesn't mean its ok to pirate software and music - it means that you will have open access to information. This is akin to freedom, wherein you can own knives, guns, ropes, and poisons, but you are still responsible for legal acts you might do with them. It isn't a loss of freedom for them to discuss responses to damages people do with poisons to others just as it isn't any loss of net neutrality to eventually ban you from using the internet.
  That does not mean the freedoms/neutrality is being limited, it means that if you are convicted of illegally using those freedoms, you may face limitations in the future. This is how civil people permit each other to act freely, but respond to wrongful acts. (Please don't give me a ration of b.s. opinion about copyright infringement --- we have these laws, and if you don't like them, change them).
8. Re:Give it Up! by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 11:16 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  But at what point are you becoming a criminal? Is it going to be illegal in the future to even criticize your government? That happens in Australia... you'll just be getting banned. No, not you, but your website(!). You'll still be able to check it out, but no-one else will be able to so you're not even beinbg informed! That's scary...
  By the way, I am so glad people still make normal hip-hop instead of "Fsck those b*tches yo, n shit" gangster-(c)rap. God I hate that! And what most artists still don't understand; your music is you promotion. Th money you make is live.
  The best of luck with your music :D ;) I like it even though I solely listen to hard-dance in my spare time.
  
  --
  Here be signatures
9. Re:Give it Up! by asdfndsagse · 2009-04-20 12:32 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  your idea is completely broken because under your idea a bank could make known bad loans and barrow on margin (thats what fractional reserve banking is all about) from other banks in a circle until then all go down at once and the CEOs take the cash. This is basically what happened.
  The problem with zero regulation is that it creates a boom and bust cycle where the banks repeatedly give you a lolli-pop and then slam a pineapple up your ass. And zero regulation is impossible with a modern system, it will always be based upon faith of some government.
  You either have to completely get rid of fractional reserve banking and return to hard money (with creates a boom and bust system) or you have a well-regulated central banking system. Elizabeth Warren said this well on the Daily Show. The US has had a boom and bust cycle of every 20 years until the great depression. Then finially we had a sne regulatory system and had a clean system for 50 years, then we started pulling out threads and creating a hybrid private interests/public money system: S&L and then Enron. I think regulation is really scary because it requires work on making sure it is enforced correctly and consistently, but its really the only way to both have a stable economy without boom and bust, and to have a have any market for credit.
European Parliament Elections very soon... by FriendlyLurker · 2009-04-20 08:17 · Score: 5, Insightful

Send a clear message that this nonsense will not be tolerated... to help make an intelligent decision when voting in European elections, see:
http://www.laquadrature.net/en [laquadrature.net]
Check out the Political memory resource:
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Political_Memory [laquadrature.net]
especially the "List of recorded votes" section to see who voted for what - before you reward them with your vote for them.
Also of interest, the Telecoms Package section: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package [laquadrature.net]
1. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 08:52 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  It's about free speech, which even for you should weigh heavier than your job, the inflation and the safety of your family.
  What if you get abused by your employer but are unable to say anything about it, or even warn others from accepting positions there? What if the government imprisons your family but you are unable to voice your protest?
  Nothing weighs heavier than free speech and freedom of expression. Internet should be a free, uncensored, unmonitored channel of communication that adheres to no rules.
  The Internet is larger than the clowns in the Parliament, it can never be controlled and even the intent of trying to control it should be made illegal.
  (I will be voting for the Swedish Pirate Party)
2. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by Yokaze · 2009-04-20 09:17 · Score: 2, Interesting
  
  > Personally I'm more interested in voting for people who can keep me in a job, keep inflation low, keep me and my family safe and prospering in the future.
  We are getting close to Godwin's law.
  > Being able to download copyrighted stuff without paying is WAY down the list of things of importance, if it even makes the list at all.
  
  Applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed
  on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end-users,
  without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities,
  notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of
  Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of
  expression and information, save when public security
  is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.
  How is that about "being able to download copyrighted stuff without paying"?
  Also, I don't think that keeping me in job or inflation low or keeping me and my family safe is the job of parliament.
  
  --
  "Between strong and weak, between rich and poor [...], it is freedom which oppresses and the law which sets free"
3. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 09:23 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  >>>voting for people who can keep me in a job, keep inflation low, keep me and my family safe and prospering in the future.
  What you're looking for is not "politicians" but "parents", and since I presume you are not a child, my advice is that you need to "put away your childish things" and stand on your own two feet as an adult. The purpose of the government is not to babysit you and/or raid your neighbors wallets like Daddy Soprano & give you their money (which I call theft of labor). The purpose of government, to quote the founder of the Democratic Party, is to "prevent one man from harming another. And that is all the government should interfere." - Thomas Jefferson.
  Another person, not sure who, said "A government powerful enough to give everything you need is also powerful enough to take everything you have. Including your property, your liberty, or your life." Just ask the American citizens who President FDR forced into concentration camps. FDR had become so powerful, he was able to imprison millions of Americans with just a word from his lips, like a living reincarnation of the Roman Emperor and completely contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land.
  The bigger the government becomes, the smaller your liberty becomes, until you might as well be living like a child, who must constantly ask permission. I don't want to live in such a society.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
4. Re:European Parliament Elections very soon... by Matt+Perry · 2009-04-20 10:51 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  Just ask the American citizens who President FDR forced into concentration camps. FDR had become so powerful, he was able to imprison millions of Americans with just a word from his lips, like a living reincarnation of the Roman Emperor and completely contrary to the Supreme Law of the Land.
  Here's a link for non-Americans who may not know about this.
  
  --
  Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Stop it. by DAldredge · 2009-04-20 08:27 · Score: 4, Insightful

Stop trying to equate network neutrality with stealing. Punishing those who keep stealing/pirating content doesn't have anything to do with NN.
1. Re:Stop it. by joocemann · 2009-04-20 09:57 · Score: 2
  
  I just posted about this. Great job at getting your post in early so it gets seen.
  There is no relationship between eventually banning a criminal from the internet, and limiting access to information.
  This whole damn slashdot posting needs to be modded OFFTOPIC since the subject matter and the headline have nothing in common.
  I'll be damn pleased if criminals on the internet eventually get their access cut off. We do these same things in the rest of the civilized world. It doesn't mean your freedoms are being limited, it means you shouldn't be doing illegal things if you want to keep all your freedoms.
The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by maillemaker · 2009-04-20 08:33 · Score: 5, Insightful

It's quite clear to me that the end of the Golden Age of the Internet is drawing near.
The internet has finally drawn the attention of the huge money and power brokers of the world. These people are going to make sure that the Internet serves their ends as much as possible.
Oh, there will be the few geeks who know how to set up a proxy to secure a tiny bit of anonymity until one of the Big Fish get wind of you and get interested in tracking you down, but for the most part, all connections are going to be monitored. They are going to know who's on each end of every communication channel, and they are going to know what is being communicated, and to a large extent, they will control it. Whether it's priority transmission speeds, bandwidth capping, or outright censoring, there's too much money at stake on the Internet now to leave the playing field "neutral".

--
A work that expires before its copyright never enters the public domain and thus enjoys eternal copyright protection.
1. Re:The end of the Golden Age of the Internet by Jestrzcap · 2009-04-20 08:58 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  It's less clear to me that this is the case.
  You think Google is going to put up long with some idiot provider charging customers an extra $20/month to allow access to *.google.com/*
  You think Google is going to share it's ad revenue with consumer ISPs? I'm just using Google as an example, but multiply this by all the big businesses out there.
  Time Warner, Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc are all competing with each other using different technologies. Within the next 5 years or so you'll have fiber-class wireless connections available to your homes.
  You really think every single player is going to be able to pull their head out of their butts long enough to coordinate something as complex as tiered internet?
  Competition is going to keep net neutrality a reality until the basics fundamentally change. You may have the odd player who tries to nickel and dime their customers by over regulating their networks, but it'll be the minority, and there will be options.
  
  --
  "I have great faith in fools: Self confidence my friends call it." ~Edgar Allan Poe
URGENT: Two days to help Catherine Trautmann prote by FriendlyLurker · 2009-04-20 08:34 · Score: 4, Informative

Bad form to reply to own post, but I just saw this related news item at http://www.laquadrature.net/en
URGENT: Two days to help Catherine Trautmann protect EU citizens.
Paris, April 20th 2009 - The Council of the EU is strongly pushing Catherine Trautmann - rapporteur of the main directives of the "Telecoms Package" - to accept a useless, neutralized version[1] of amendment 138. This amendment, opposing to "graduated response - or "three strikes" â" schemes, has been overwhelmingly adopted by the European Parliament in its first reading on September 2008, and is crucial for safeguarding EU citizens' rights and freedoms. La Quadrature du Net calls European citizens to urge their MEPs seating in ITRE committee to support the rapporteur by refusing any compromise neutralizing amendment 138 (now renumbered 46) on April 21st vote.
[1] The Council wants to make it a merely indicative recital instead of an article that Member States must transpose into their law
Why would they want to... by d474 · 2009-04-20 08:40 · Score: 3, Insightful

...basically DRM the entire internet? That's where they are eventually trying to get to, and we all know it.

--
Authority questions you. Return the favor.
1. Re:Why would they want to... by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 09:32 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  The answer is obvious. They don't want us getting stuff for free. They want us to borrow even more money, go even deeper into debt, and buy more DVDs, CDs, and books. It's all about the $$$.
  
  --
  "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:maybe, maybe not by commodore64_love · 2009-04-20 08:49 · Score: 4, Insightful

Call back later? Wrong answer. Once the amendment's passed, it's too late to call your representative. We Americans have discovered this from personal experience wherein today's proposal suddenly passes the Congress tomorrow, and now we're stuck with the law. Too late to whine after it's a done deal.
NOW is the time to call your reps.

--
"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Re:maybe, maybe not by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 08:50 · Score: 5, Insightful

Yes. The vote hasn't happened yet.
Generally speaking its best to raise awareness of an important vote before it happens, so that you can contact your representatives and make it clear what you expect them to do. You know, so that your representatives actually represent you. Believe it or not democracy doesn't have to happen with elected officials doing what they want while you mutter under your breath, you are allowed as a citizen to actually participate in the process by making your opinions clear to those people who make the vote.
Bandwidth Exceeded by Jonas+Buyl · 2009-04-20 08:55 · Score: 2, Informative

Seems the website couldn't handle Slashdot but remember it's still available in Google's Cache @ http://shuurl.com/F4451
Re:maybe, maybe not by Shark · 2009-04-20 09:02 · Score: 4, Insightful

And if they don't get what they initially wanted, they'll try another law, and if that doesn't go through, they'll try another law... Until they finally manage to come up with the perfect timing when nobody is paying attention and it goes through.
That or they'll just declare that it's in effect, they can get away with that more and more these days. It's not like voting them out would change anything.

--
Mind the frickin' laser...
Cheesed Wife by Anonymous Coward · 2009-04-20 09:23 · Score: 2, Funny

I told my wife about this while lying on the couch this evening...she got so pissed off that she emailed all 100 Euro MP's in for Germany in 3 hours...nice, now if she was only this keen in bed ;(
The public will not like this by Turzyx · 2009-04-20 09:30 · Score: 4, Interesting

Most of the people I know are not familiar with the intricacies of today's technology. If they think for one minute they are being monitored, watched and spied upon by anyone, let alone government and telecoms companies, they'll stop internet shopping, social networking and wikipedia surfing immediately (which lets face it, is all most normal people use a PC for nowadays anyway). Just look at how much people kicked off over Facebook wanting to protect people's email inbox after the sender deleted their copy...

If this even get close to being passed, mainstream media will have a field day, especially given that most UK tabloids despise Europe in its entirety already.

Perhaps this is a ploy to stimulate high street sales amirite?
Re:What Net Neutrality? by Computershack · 2009-04-20 09:31 · Score: 2, Informative

It's about your ISP being told to kick you off the net after being caught using it for illegal activity 3 times. You know, just like most ISPs do in the UK already, with some kicking you the first time.

--
I only please one person per day. Today is not your day. Tomorrow isn't looking good either. - Scott Adams
Re:maybe, maybe not by V!NCENT · 2009-04-20 09:58 · Score: 4, Informative

For all the Dutch people here (part of the EU), mail this to the NOS News at nosbinnenland@nos.nl to send your press tips and raise awareness.
The NOS news has been reporting on censorship last week with that local newspaper... I am sure some of you will remember, so they will express interest in this too.
Hint at the Australian censorship as to why 'child-porn' blocking went instantly into censorship of Wikileaks and Wikipedia among other legitimate websites. You can alos find that block-list on Wikileaks.
If more people than just me tip them about it via email then I am sure they will air it tommorow!
Don't think that some one else will already do that beauce usualy no-one does because they think "ah a lot of people will read this so I don't have to"!

--
Here be signatures