Dutch To Introduce Net Neutrality By Law

An anonymous reader writes "Big news out of the Netherlands this week, where a government minister announced plans to guarantee network neutrality by law. If Parliament approves the amendment to Dutch telecommunications law, and it expected to do so, it would become one of the first countries in the world to legislate against Internet providers who want to charge more for using particular applications or services."

Comments

first =)

[jaunkst]

Go Net Neutrality!

Wonderful.

[Zedrick]

The Netherlands is truly a developed country. Too bad it's so overcrowded.

Re:Wonderful.

[Ironhandx]

I'm seriously considering moving there asap. Find a decent town with low crime rate and ik vil nederlandse les het goed!

Re:Wonderful.

[Squiddie]

Yeah, but you would think that the "Land of The Free" would have guaranteed internet freedom much earlier than anyone else. Instead, they are busy trying to lock it down.

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

It was never the "land of the free to use other people's property the way I want."

It will be very interesting to see how this small scale in a first world country through government fiat experiment will work or not.

Re:Wonderful.

[cpu6502]

The US has always been behind the times.
Heck we didn't even invent the Bill of Rights concept. It was taken from the British, after we won the civil war. Or the concept of natural rights (invented by the Greek Stoics and Roman Senator Cicero). We're all just a a bunch of plagiarists. ;-)

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

The civil war? Not quite...

Re:Wonderful.

[SilentStaid]

And if we adopt this from the Dutch, I'll continue to think that even if we're stealing ideas - at least we steal some of the good ones.

Re:Wonderful.

[kosty]

"Land of The FEE..." FTFY.

Re:Wonderful.

[dainbug]

WTF? "Other people's property"? I was under the impression that the internet was developed by ARPA (DARPA) in 1969. (and a bunch of universities -- go bruins) with my tax dollars. Can the part that is owned by the tax payer (Government, Military, Public Universities, and the parts that were built with government subsidies) all be run the way "I" want? (We want)

Re:Wonderful.

[AK Marc]

So it's instead the land where the landowners are free to do whatever they want, and those without capital have no rights?

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't make fast conclusions. We've had some pretty close calls with respect to internet filtering (see bits of freedom for more info).

Re:Wonderful.

[MindlessAutomata]

Of all the arguments you chose, you chose that one? Seriously, man. His argument is going to be that the ISPs own their own wire, routers, and access to them (that part of the internet) is not public anymore than your personal router and wireless or ethernet is public.

By arguing THAT, you show you don't really understand what the overall issues are about.

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

How does network neutrality let anyone use someone else's property without an agreement? Everyone pays their ISP for service. The services work out how to fulfill their contracts with peering agreements, etc. . Why should the fact that I am asking for data from Google be handled any differently than if it was from Yahoo, or my next door neighbor?

Re:Wonderful.

[MBGMorden]

Depending on how you look at it, the Revolutionary War WAS a civil war, as at that time we were part of Britain and were fighting with the main British forces. It's just that the "civil war" tag is usually only applied when the side wanting to break away loses the fight. :)

Re:Wonderful.

[roman_mir]

you are under the wrong impression.

DARPA took ideas from existing POTS, which already was using packet switching, then it took existing computer networks, which didn't use packet switching, and applied the packet switching and created TCP/IP.

That was the contribution - the protocol.

Now, AT&T was certainly declared a "national resource", it was given all sorts of monopoly powers by the federal government, so that was totally wrong.

However you are arguing about your ISP, not the protocol and not even the AT&T specific lines, so when you look at the fact that most of the Internet (99% of it probably) is private networks, then you can try and ask your question again.

Re:Wonderful.

[AliasMarlowe]

I'll continue to think that even if we're stealing ideas - at least we steal some of the good ones.

Good ideas should be stolen with pride!
That was one of the things we learned during a week-long "team-building group brainstorm" (I jest not).

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

There is Internet freedom (libre) but not Internet freedom (gratis, as in beer). Net neutrality comes with a lot of baggage that will block certain types of content (i.e. think Chinese "firewall").

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Ideas can't be stolen. They can be copied and you can [falsely] claim to be the inventor. But the original creator is not deprived of the idea; merely the credit.

Re:Wonderful.

[commodore6502]

>>>It was never the "land of the free to use other people's property the way I want."

Except these ISPs were granted (1) use of government-owned roads and right-of-ways plus (2) monopolies. Examples: Comcast, cox, verizon. The government can regulate these ISPs for either of those 2 reasons:

1 - Because government regulates everything that runs on, or under the roads.
2 - Because government regulates monopolies like the Power company, phone company, natural gas company, and water/sewer company. The internet monopoly is no different.

Re:Wonderful.

[Xiph1980]

Well, not knowing where you're from, but compared to most countries I've visited, we just don't have the same crime rate. Really, the worst areas in the Netherlands aren't even close to shady areas I've seen in Paris, New York, Philadelphia or.. where-ever really, apart from Denmark and Sweden. Be prepared to pay a decent dime for housing though. Real estate isn't cheap at all in the NL..

Re:Wonderful.

[MaskedSlacker]

It was never the "land of the free to use other people's property the way I want."

Really? The history of 19th century America is the history of one group wanting to use another group's property, and doing so over, and over, and over. You must be a real American to be so ignorant of your own country's history. Off the top of my head:

Repeated relocation of Native Americans to steal their land.
Chattel Slavery (using some else's body the way I want without their consent).
Grazing rights conflicts in the west.
Water rights conflicts in the west.
Mineral/oil rights conflicts.
Railroad right-of-way conflicts.

I'm sure a few dozen more specific cases could be added.

In short, America was ALWAYS the "land of the free to use other people's property the way I want."

Re:Wonderful.

[Ironhandx]

I come from Newfoundland. The last murder we had was in international news. That's how often it happens.

Re:Wonderful.

[Squiddie]

Except that that wire runs on public land and most of the roll-out was subsidized by taxpayers, at least in the US. Then there is the issue that many ISPs have local monopolies. They need to be regulated, and net neutrality is one way of keeping the content that runs inside their wires free. This has always been the norm, I don't know why it's so controversial now.

Re:Wonderful.

[Xiph1980]

Well, I have no idea how many murders you've got annually, but on a country of 16.7 million inhabitants, we had the following numbers of murders from 2010 to 2005: 170 / 178 / 161 / 143 / 149 / 201 so that's not too bad I think :)

Re:Wonderful.

[roman_mir]

businesses must not be subsidized by governments and governments must not own assets.

If your argument is that the lines are government property still, then they should be seized by the government, and then sold on the market, liquidated, and whoever buys the networks, owns them. From there on, there must be no government money in any businesses, I don't know why this is so controversial now.

Re:Wonderful.

[Xtifr]

Given that the "Land of the Free" was heavily influenced by the Dutch Republic (1581-1795), maybe it's not so surprising. Note that this was the period when, despite the lack of rule by royalty or church, the Dutch became a major world power, confounding all expectations at the time. Since the Republic was still a going concern at the time of the American Revolution, I think that there's little doubt that it was a major influence on the Founding Fathers' decision to try something similar. Of course, there's some irony in the fact that the freedom of religion guaranteed by the Dutch Republic was probably a factor in the Pilgrims' decision to leave Holland (where they'd fled from England) and colonize America, where they would be free to hate both royalty and Catholics.

Anyway, given Holland's long (if interrupted) history of freedom, perhaps it isn't so surprising that they'd be first here. We can only hope that the US doesn't take 195 years to follow the Dutch lead this time! :)

Re:Wonderful.

[Squiddie]

No matter what, those lines even if developed and privately owned, are still on government property. That doesn't change.

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's just that the "civil war" tag is usually only applied when the side wanting to break away loses the fight. :)

No, the side who lost is now referring to it as the "War of Northern Aggression" or some such nonsense to try to romanticize their fight for slavery.

Re:Wonderful.

[Ironhandx]

Population of 800k, less than 1 annually. We had a freak year with two murders back in 99/00 which threw our average off. Otherwise... 20 years, 5 murders. Total.

Those numbers are pretty good though :)

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

The most of the northern parts are pretty unpopulated (compared to the rest) so feel free! (and crime is also low, except for bicycle theft)

-A happy dutch guy

Re:Wonderful.

[roman_mir]

I don't understand what you are saying. Are you saying that if the lines are sold to private bidders by government, then the government still owns them? Is this your opinion for any asset or for phone lines only? And what happened to the property rights then, if you can't buy something and own it after you pay for it? Are you OK, is air too hot maybe wherever you are there?

Re:Wonderful.

[Squiddie]

Regulation != owning The government is free to regulate anything that happens on their property. Even if you buy a house, you still have to abide by regulations set forth by the government. We all follow laws, it's time that the telecoms did too.

Re:Wonderful.

[roman_mir]

Regulation != owning The government is free to regulate anything that happens on their property.

- that's fine, I disagree that government should own any assets, but that's fine, it can do whatever on its property.

Even if you buy a house, you still have to abide by regulations set forth by the government.

- bylaws are not your federal government telling you stuff.

We all follow laws, it's time that the telecoms did too.

- again, if you think that the phone lines/cables are government property, then that's one thing, (from my POV then the assets should be immediately seized and liquidated), but if a business buys an asset, even if the asset is bought from a government, then the asset is no longer in government's possession.

Realize what you are saying: if you a car manufacturer, do you still own the car after somebody buys it? Does private property still mean anything in USA, or is it just an empty sound?

Re:Wonderful.

[Brannoncyll]

This will never happen again as it's only a matter of time before the bill of rights is copyrighted.

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

huh, just so you know, that dutch is nonsensical. Maybe: ik wil graag hele goede nedelandse lessen nemen

Re:Wonderful.

[Obfuscant]

Then there is the issue that many ISPs have local monopolies.

I know of none in the US. Care to name a few? Given that there are dialup ISPs still around that cover the entire US, I'd say you won't be able to name any. And given that this new law covers cellphone ISPs, and that there are at least three major providers that cover most of the US (AT&T/T-Mobile, Verizon, and Sprint), you are less likely to be able to name any.

They need to be regulated, and net neutrality is one way of keeping the content that runs inside their wires free. This has always been the norm, I don't know why it's so controversial now.

Well, many times, trying to regulate (mandate) "the norm" turns "the norm" into something controversial. For example, "the norm", at least in this part of my world, is that front yards have grass and maybe a tree or two. I'd wager that trying to mandate "grass and a tree or two" as a required "front yard" for everyone would result in a lot of controversy, even from those who have exactly that kind of yard.

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, I guess dial-up is an alternative. Do go tell that to the people being screwed over by their ISP. "Hey, you could always switch to dial-up." Nice job, retard.

Re:Wonderful.

[MBGMorden]

No, the side who lost is now referring to it as the "War of Northern Aggression" or some such nonsense to try to romanticize their fight for slavery.

I think that's more of a TV thing. I grew up in the south (South Carolina - hell we started the war) and still live here. In my 30 years I have not once in my life heard that war referred to as the "War of Northern Aggression" except on television and the Internet. To any other person - even the "south will rise again!" lunatics you occasionally meet, it's just "the civil war".

Re:Wonderful.

[rtb61]

All of the resources of a country are owned by all of it's citizens equally. Control of some of those resources is privatised under conditions applied by those citizens. Don't want to adhere to those conditions, then privatised control of parts of the countries resources will be taken from you.

Wake up to yourself, all of a countries citizens provide the means by which those resources are protected, become available for use, are distributed and rewards provided for serving those resources. If you can't work with the rest of human society, due to genetic defects like psychopathy and narcissism, it is you that needs to be isolated from privatised control of parts of a countries resources and not a requirement that the majority of citizens need to adjust to your insane demands.

Those requirements the set limits upon how citizens use their own bodies (you can not run up to random individuals and scream in their face or cover their mouths to prevent them from speaking) also apply to the tools and by extension major works of infrastructure (you have no right to substitute your content for theirs or to censor their content).

Re:Wonderful.

[shutdown -p now]

It's just that the "civil war" tag is usually only applied when the side wanting to break away loses the fight.

That kinda assumes that civil wars only happen when one side wants to break away. That's not exactly the case - some examples of other kinds of civil wars are Russian and Finnish ones in early 20th century.

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is cpu6502 we're talking about. We're lucky that we got a comment even this coherent out of him.

Re:Wonderful.

[msh104]

The Netherlands is the second country in the world to do so. ( Chili was the first ) I'd say that counts as "much earlier than anyone else".
It is however true that at the same other people are considering putting quite dangerous infrastructure in place ( mostly under child pornography banner )
Nevertheless, this is still a move in the right direction.

Re:Wonderful.

[John Betonschaar]

Well, I have no idea how many murders you've got annually, but on a country of 16.7 million inhabitants, we had the following numbers of murders from 2010 to 2005: 170 / 178 / 161 / 143 / 149 / 201

And about half of these have been vendetta's, criminals killing other criminals. I think you can safely say we have a pretty safe country, crime-wise (don't leave your bike unattended for too long though ;-)

Re:Wonderful.

[mcvos]

Don't be too quick to celebrate. This is a rare positive decision in Dutch politics. For the most part of the past 10 years, Dutch politics have been going down the drain, becoming more polarized, more populist, and more focused on short term silliness. It's still not nearly as bad the the US, but I'd seriously consider moving to Sweden if I wouldn't leave so many friends and family behind.

Re:Wonderful.

[mcvos]

Real estate isn't cheap at all in the NL..

That's some understatement. Real estate is bloody expensive here. As soon as you cross the border with Germany, housing prices drop by 50%. Even the mortgage crisis hardly put a dent in the housing prices.

Re:Wonderful.

[roman_mir]

All of the resources of a country are owned by all of it's citizens equally

- reaaaally? You gotta show me the land that you own, which is equal to all the land everybody else own, and also, do you get the oil, that is your cut, in tankers, or do you just virtually own it, and some authority holds it for you in a large shared container?

Control of some of those resources is privatised under conditions applied by those citizens. Don't want to adhere to those conditions, then privatised control of parts of the countries resources will be taken from you.

- nope, that's not how it works. AT&T was laying cable, then they probably got together with some politicians, and they got a large discount on the property taxes, and they also got the government to give them the right of way, probably imminent domain clauses were applied, etc. The company was at some point declared a 'national resource'. But the company didn't start as such, it was a private business, and only the corruption of the government that made it into a monopoly.

So if the government corruption makes you a monopoly, what you have is captive audience and no competition, but in fact, it does not at all mean that the 'citizens' own your resources 'equally'. No such thing, because it's all about the corruption in the government, and it is done for profit of certain people in companies/government, but it's not done for your benefit, so there are no laws that state or enforce what you are implying there.

Wake up to yourself, all of a countries citizens provide the means by which those resources are protected, become available for use, are distributed and rewards provided for serving those resources.

- which resources would that be? Why would you give preference to any one company running phone lines and cable over any other company? Why would you undermine your own economy this way, which clearly brings higher prices, lowers competition and choice, lowers economic activity, destroys investment opportunities, destroys jobs, distorts the money market and kills the economy?

It makes no sense, so when you say:

If you can't work with the rest of human society, due to genetic defects like psychopathy and narcissism, it is you that needs to be isolated from privatised control of parts of a countries resources and not a requirement that the majority of citizens need to adjust to your insane demands.

- I throw right back at you this: if you can't understand that competition is better for the general economy, it's better for production, lower prices, innovation and invention, more capital investment, jobs, etc., if you can't understand it, then you have a disease, I don't think it's necessarily genetic, but it's there, and you may want to seek treatment.

Those requirements the set limits upon how citizens use their own bodies (you can not run up to random individuals and scream in their face or cover their mouths to prevent them from speaking)

- that's not a limit on YOUR body, that's a limit on you applying force to ANOTHER body, but it's not purview of government, by the way, this is criminal law, and laws are different from location to location. It's actually unnecessary having a government in order to have a working justice system, as justice system only functions as long as there is trust in it, and a government system without trust is broken. Do I trust government with the justice system? No. I don't trust it with the justice system anymore than I trust it with the economy.

also apply to the tools and by extension major works of infrastructure (you have no right to substitute your content for theirs or to censor their content).

- What does it mean: "I have no right"?

What does that mean at all, if the rights are a construct related to the interaction between the individual and the collective - the citizen an

Re:Wonderful.

[Ironhandx]

Sweden has proven itself to be far too in bed with the US government for my liking.

On the other hand I already know a few dutchmen and overall your policies aren't going down the drain nearly as fast as.... well... every other developed nation.

Re:Wonderful.

[Ironhandx]

The last time I looked it wasn't that bad. A 4 bedroom 2 story was going for about 200k euros. Which is more or less the same as here.

Re:Wonderful.

[Cimexus]

Yep that's pretty good.

You even beat (not by much, mind you) my own country (Australia), which is already considered to have fairly low violent crime statistics by world standards. Murders here are between 260 and 290 per year here over the last decade (for a population of ~22 million).

Wiki has a decent table comparing countries by murder rate: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate - most recent stats are 1.3 per 100,000 in Australia compared to 0.93 per 100,000 in the Netherlands.

Interestingly, France and the UK are almost exactly the same as Australia, around 1.3/100,000. So although Paris or London themselves might be more dangerous, that doesn't seem to translate to the entire country. The US' statistic is also surprising: 5.0 per 100,000 - the highest among OECD countries by a long shot (though still comparatively safe compared to the majority of countries in the world). Finland also caught my eye as being unusual: 2.8/100,000 - considerably higher than all the other northern European countries that surround it, for some odd reason.

Stats are interesting...

Re:Wonderful.

[mcvos]

Depends entirely on the location, of course. I paid 300k euros for a 80m^2, 2 bedroom apartment. Of course that's Amsterdam. I could get a mansion for that if I was willing to move to the middle of nowhere.

Re:Wonderful.

[mcvos]

That's just because we're a bit slow.

Re:Wonderful.

[Ironhandx]

I prefer the middle of no-where. If it has a high speed internet connection, I'm golden.

I also couldn't live in something that size however. My one bedroom apartment is about the same size and it feels small. That works out to roughly 800 sq ft, or a 20x40 home.

Then again I guess storage space isn't as big an issue in Amsterdam. I like to have a walk in pantry etc however for storing dry goods and such.

Honestly I'd sacrifice living space everywhere else just to get one. Buying flour and sugar by 20lb and 50lb bags saves a lot of money :)

Are there any nice suburbs within like 20-30 minutes of most of the major centers in Amsterdam?

Re:Wonderful.

[Ironhandx]

Might be that the Goverment is a bit like the Canadian government and there are enough protections put into place around certain laws that they can't be changed easily. This would be a very good thing. It allows time for the people to realize what sort of dipshits they have in charge and change them out.

How prevalent exactly is english there however? If I was looking to say, buy a plot of land and build a house over there, would I encounter a lot of difficulties because I can't speak Dutch?

Re:Wonderful.

[mcvos]

20-30 minutes of what? Parking a car in the center of Amsterdam is hard and expensive, but 30 minutes by train gets you pretty far. 30 minutes by bike less so.

I'm not entirely sure what counts as suburb around here. We have other towns around Amsterdam. I guess Amsterdam's biggest suburb is Almere, in itself the fifth largest 'city' in the country, but most of the people who live there work in Amsterdam. (I put 'city' in quotes because it lacks the cafe's, restaurants, shopping districts, history and atmosphere that I think a city should have. Nobody goes to Almere for a night out. Everybody goes to Amsterdam.) Every morning there's a huge traffic jam from Almere to Amsterdam. Other than that it's apparently quite nice and spaceous if you like designed cities, designed nature, and lack of history.

My choice would be Haarlem, which is older than Amsterdam and every bit as expensive. Or maybe one of the quaint little towns just outside Amsterdam, but those are even more expensive (but gorgeous!).

Re:Wonderful.

[mcvos]

I think the legal documents are likely to be in Dutch. You probably want to hire a local lawyer to help you with that. Pick one that specializes in helping foreigners buy land here. I'm sure those exist. For building as house, it's also worthwhile to hire people with a good command of English. You don't want to risk miscommunication there.

Re:Wonderful.

[sirlatrom]

The US' statistic is also surprising: 5.0 per 100,000 - the highest among OECD countries by a long shot (though still comparatively safe compared to the majority of countries in the world).

That must be all those guns people have the right to carry, and all the murders constantly covered on the news which make people feel like they should probably carry a gun, just in case...

Re:Wonderful.

[Ironhandx]

I'd prefer to buy materials in NL and then bring in my own crew for building. Depending on how difficult bringing in some workers for a few months would be.

Re:Wonderful.

[mcvos]

If you pay them more than 48,000 euro a year, it's not very hard. If you pay them less, then you have to prove that there are no natives capable of doing to same work, and that's going to be pretty hard.

Re:Wonderful.

[Ironhandx]

That works out to 70k per year CAD, with overtime they make more than that and there is always overtime.

Re:Wonderful.

[billstewart]

Finland's easy to explain - "Why did you kill him?" "I've been stuck in the cabin for two months while it's been dark and snowing, and he just pissed me off!"

Re:Wonderful.

[Anonymous Coward]

"Land of The Free" also means that the providers of a service have the freedom to charge what they want for what they provide. and you have the freedom to chose to use it or go somewhere else. that competitive environment is what brings about progress in the technology used to give you faster internet speeds. if they all can only charge the same amount no matter what they offer then why would they change anything?

Re:Wonderful.

[bhtooefr]

What about roads?

Private roads get into some nasty issues with rights of access and such, and therefore roads are almost all government owned.

Leave it to the Dutch!

[Anonymous Coward]

...the Internet that is.

Because without neutrality there are merely internets.

Re:Leave it to the Dutch!

[El_Muerte_TDS]

Not so sure about that. We (the Dutch) are leading in telephone taps in the world. And local regulation is already wasting gigbaytes on mandatory ISP communications monitoring. And there have been numerous plans for CP filters and what not.

So, this is just one win in the battle.

Re:Leave it to the Dutch!

[Anonymous Coward]

You guys have the weirdest society.

You're progressive as hell, but you've got quite the mixed-bag of ideals and customs.

Re:Leave it to the Dutch!

[El_Muerte_TDS]

It's the problem of true freedom, everybody gets it, even the people you don't agree with.

Although the real problem is ignorance and deceit that results in a majority vote.

Re:Leave it to the Dutch!

[AndyAndyAndyAndy]

It's like Massachusetts.

Re:Leave it to the Dutch!

[mcvos]

Good lord, yes. We definitely are. I can't even begin to list all the Dutch weirdness. Some of it is really good, some of it it really bad, and most of it is really contradictory. I guess it's our drive for constant compromise in a very heterogenous society. (Though lately it's become a lot more polarized. I fear we may start to suck, and eventually perhaps even become boring.)

Great job

[Lunaritian]

So there actually is a country where copyright holders don't rule the Internet!

Re:Great job

[Anonymous Coward]

actually. no.

they have brein, they were the one that made mininova remove all copyrighted materials... that they linked to.
but at the very least they are going the right way.

Re:Great job

[meburke]

Well, according to my friends who actually live in the Netherlands, some are US expats, it is a great place to live. There are lots of social services, so the tax rate is close to 75%. Disposable income is a fraction of what it is in the USA. Houses are extremely hard to buy. Credit is very hard to come by. Life is dull, but secure.

The cost of a car is maybe the most expensive in the world. Consumer goods, such as computers and TV's (especially big-screen tv's) are typically twice what you would pay in the US (comparable dollars/euro). So, the top-of-the-line i7 Fujitsu laptop I bought for $3K would cost me about twice that in the Netherlands. ATT charges me $80/mo for my internet connection, which is free in the Netherlands (when and where available). It would only take me 6 years to recoup the cost of my laptop by having free, net neutral internet in the Netherlands if I don't include the cost of living and the loss of comparable income.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. The problem with our telecommunications system is that it is a broken market. In a free market world, the cost of services would go down as more people buy. One of the things that causes this broken market is lack of competition. When only two providers control 80%+ and the infrastructure is closed or extremely expensive, they can squeeze us by excessive tolls. When the day comes that the highest conduits are part of your city utilities and the there are competitive pipes between cities, you may see a significant drop in price for competitive services. Strange as it may seem, the pipeline industry provides a good model of competition providing the most volume to any destination at the lowest price. I can picure a day when "bandwidth brokers" are taking minute-by-minute bids on competitive communications pipes.

Another aspect of the situation: Net neutrality is a type of price control. Price control invariably causes shortages and lower quality of service. In a net-neutral world, the only people who will have the highest quality service will be those who can afford to bypass the common market and buy the elite services. (Try hooking up to Internet2.)

Re:Great job

[schuinestreeppunt]

So there actually is a country where copyright holders don't rule the Internet!

This actually is about the right to use Skype and WhatsApp. One of the largest mobile telecommunications companies in the country had plans to charge extra money for the right to use applications for VoIP or texting, and was experimenting with deep packet inspection to accomplish this.

The amendment does not provide in the right to upload copyrighted materials.

Re:Great job

[mwvdlee]

I'm Dutch.

Sorry to inform you, you are wrong on much of what you state.

We do have great social services, second only to scandinavia AFAIK.
Taxes are not flat but range roughly from 33% to 50% depending on income with a tax-free bottom sum.
Can't compare disposable income, but from what I've know it's pretty much equal considering in the US you have to pay for a lot of things that are paid through taxes here; the amount of money we have left at the end of the month is probably quite close. More significantly we have far less economic "outliers" around here; few billionairs and few people living in poverty.
Houses ARE more expensive and since the economic crisis, credits have become somewhat more difficult.
As for dull; life is what you make of it; if your friends prefer to live a dull live around here, they can do so ;)
Cars are more expensive, but not by much (OTOH, fuel IS a lot more expensive than in the US).
Consumer goods aren't twice as expensive, perhaps some 10%-20% more expensive. Mostly because of corporate taxes. As I understand it, many US companies are able to pay $0 taxes due to creative accounting. Tax laws are a little less pro-corporate around here.
Internet isn't free, neither wired nor mobile. I don't quite know what you get for $80/mo with AT&T, but the most expensive mobile subscription for iPhone4 around here is roughly $55 a month.
AFAIK, most of the above is similar for the rest of the north and west European countries.

Re:Great job

[QuasiSteve]

Well, according to my friends who actually live in the Netherlands, some are US expats, it is a great place to live. There are [...]

I've seen some people say they wanted to move to NL. Probably in jest, but one good place to check if NL is right for you would be to dig into the stories and forums here:
http://www.expatica.com/nl/main.html

Note that you will find many, many bitter 'expats' there. The majority of which were really just hoping to be an American living like an American, while living in NL, rather than adapting to Dutch ways. ( Note that I say 'adapting', not 'conforming'.. we're not the Borg. )

You'll also find quite a few positive posts, however.

Having read posts there occasionally for the last 8 years or so, I can say that it's a fairly reasonable resource for learning about NL, particular regions, what to expect, what you might love, what you might hate, etc.
It also has a few small sections set up to get you on your way with actually travelling to NL and migrating to NL, but the general recommendation is that you speak to an emigration handler in your home country as they know the legal rigmarole du jour.

Here's one tip.. The Dutch know English quite well, and they're not averse to speaking it as much as people in some of the other European countries. However, unless you find yourself in an international community (e.g. the British area, Polish neighborhood or China Town of one of the major cities), you're not going to find a whole lot helping you out in English - quite unlike the plethora of Spanish signs/etc. in the southern U.S., say - so take some time and effort and learn Dutch. ( I think for official immigration you're actually required to take a short Dutch exam, but a recent advisory from a commission suggested to do away with that. )

Re:Great job

[meburke]

Thanks for the info. I decided to check what you said and what I thought against the "Pocket World in Figures" on my shelf. Most of what you said is much more accurate than the impressions I got from friends in the Netherlands. I don't know why I thought that internet connection was free; I found references from friends living in other countries where it was free, but not from the Netherlands. (A friend of mine in Italy waited six months between ordering and getting hooked up.)

I checked the used car prices on autotrack and found that the price is a little higher, the cars are usually lower mileage, and the taxes quite a bit higher. Insurance is higher and NL has a pretty expensive road tax. Actual quantification eludes me.

The OECD database seems to indicate that disposable income is about 80% of a comparable US citizen's disposable income. However, it seems that Americans have a greater amount to blow away due to the much lower cost of consumer items. I guess I'm saying that a comparable sum will, at this time, buy more goods in the USA than in NL, because less of it goes to consumer taxes.

Browsing past editions of the PWiF, I see that the USA has dropped quite a bit in the past few years. In 2000, we had more disposable income than Germany, Japan and GB combined. As we adopt more socialistic practices and gather more debt, I suspect that the USA economic miracles will be at an end in few years.

There is nothing like a lot of facts to blow away my favorite presuppositions...

Re:Great job

[Obfuscant]

I've seen some people say they wanted to move to NL.

I've been to NL many times. Very nice place.

Good transit system. It is relatively easy to use, but there is one strange part. It seems there is a town called "Buiten Dienst" (spelling?) that many buses go to, but I cannot find it on the map. And those buses don't seem to stop at any of the regular bus stops. Other than that, ok.

Bad prices. Too high.

The only reason I'd maybe move there is that they know what to put on French Fries. But then, I can buy a bottle of mayo here and do it without moving. Maybe for stroopwaffles. A nice warm fresh from from the vendor in a city market... mmm.

Re:Great job

[QuasiSteve]

Good transit system. It is relatively easy to use, but there is one strange part. It seems there is a town called "Buiten Dienst" (spelling?) that many buses go to, but I cannot find it on the map. And those buses don't seem to stop at any of the regular bus stops. Other than that, ok.

rofl

The stuff we put on our French Fries in the stands and such isn't really 'mayo' in the sense of either the Dutch mayonnaise (okay on sandwiches, as a salad dressing base, and often used in the home when eating oven/deep fry French Fries) or the various mayos I've had in the U.S. (which work great on sandwiches).. it has a slightly more sour and fresh flavor to it. As far as I know, that migrated from the Belgians. A more typically Dutch thing to put on Fries in some areas, certainly in the last 5 years, is 'Joppiesaus'.
I'm partial to 'Oorlog' ('war', mayo + peanutsauce + bits of onion), myself.

And yes, stroopwafels are awesome! I was saddened when we finishes the ones I brought (not fresh, but still delicious - 10s nuke in the microwave makes 'm better) and couldn't find anything even remotely similar where I was staying.

Re:Great job

[Neil Boekend]

Good transit system. It is relatively easy to use, but there is one strange part. It seems there is a town called "Buiten Dienst" (spelling?) that many buses go to, but I cannot find it on the map. And those buses don't seem to stop at any of the regular bus stops. Other than that, ok.

Dunno if that's a joke (I thought it was a quite good one) but on the off chance that it wasn't: "Buiten Dienst" means "out of service". They're not supposed to stop.

Re:Great job

[mvdwege]

You'll also find a lot of posts complaining we Dutch are rude.

They are right.

Much as I love my country, this is really apparent if you've grown up in the provinces, where manners are a bit old-fashioned, or if you've just been abroad. The average Dutchmen:

• ... does not make way when walking three abreast towards you on the pavement.
• ... does not wait until everyone has left the tram/bus/train before trying to get in themselves.
• ... does not ask nicely for something, but states a desire at best or gives an outright command at worst.

And that's only a few of the daily irritations you have to deal with. If you care about manners, the four big cities and surrounding towns are areas to stay away from.

Mart

Re:Great job

[Dr La]

I checked the used car prices on autotrack and found that the price is a little higher, the cars are usually lower mileage, and the taxes quite a bit higher. Insurance is higher and NL has a pretty expensive road tax. Actual quantification eludes me.

At the same time, you have to take into account that the Netherlands is a small country. We don't have to drive 3 hours to our work (and many people actually commute by public transport). So while gasoline is expensive, you won't spend as many gallons a week typically as an average US citizen would.

Re:Great job

[Dr La]

Life is dull, but secure

I had a relationship with a US expat for a while, and have an expat US/British colleague. Their life is dull, because they usually form their own social circles and don't integrate well into Dutch society.

Re:Great job

[Dr La]

Disposable income is a fraction of what it is in the USA.

In absolute terms, but not in relative terms. The average Dutchman can buy as much here for his/her salary as the average US citizen in the US can for his/her. Added to this should be the fact that poverty levels (i.e. the relative number of poor people) in the Netherlands are much lower than in the US. Dutch also tend to be well-educated (we are among the highest educated people in the world). 8% of our population has a university degree (and that is a real university, not a college) and 30% of our population has an advanced level degree ("college").

With respect to cars etc.: we are not a car-oriented society. We are a small country, and a lot of people use public transport, which is very good (even though we complain about it) and brings us everywhere without having to wait a half day.

Re:Great job

[mcvos]

You'll also find a lot of posts complaining we Dutch are rude.

We're honest and direct. That's what we like to call it. But we're honest and direct to the point of rudeness, and sometimes that gets a bit out of hand. We're also some other things to the point of rudeness. Although some Dutchmen can be very polite and considerate. Mostly we're all different, though. The thing that anooys Dutchmen most of all is other Dutchmen, except for the ones that are somewhat like us.

Re:Great job

[mvdwege]

Look, I know it is common to be defensive and try to hide behind "We're honest and direct", but on average (note the words), it's just not true.

For fun, when next you stand in line for a sandwich or in a shop, try counting how many people ask for their order using 'Alstublieft' en 'Dank u wel', how many bluntly say 'Ik wil...' (a common error for Dutchmen speaking English is to order using 'I want $FOO', instead of 'I would like $FOO', this is because we use the former almost exclusively in our native language) and how many just bark out the article they want.

Honestly, if you don't draw the conclusion that the average is just plain bad-mannered then, I wonder at what you would consider bad manners.

Re:Great job

[mcvos]

Stating directly what you want doesn't have to be bad manners if that's the local etiquette. In crowded places, people often leave out the extras to get to the point as fast as possible so the shop can quickly help the next person. It's efficiency. In situations like that, I usually say "Een $foo graag", which is plenty polite.

In places where you can take a bit more time for each other, they often take a bit more time for each other. But you should always be careful with directly translating phrases and manners from one language or culture to another. Efficiency is a large part of Dutch etiquette. This is probably less so in other cultures.

Re:Great job

[Anonymous Coward]

In Spain, that'll be a gentleman. :)

Re:Great job

[Anonymous Coward]

Try the neighbouring country, Germany.
There, every town has a place of interest called "Einbahnstraße" and there are directions for it
everywhere in town. But you can follow them as long as you like, you never get there.

UK

[Anonymous Coward]

The Netherlands, as always, proves to be a forerunner for an appropriate approach to the internet, and other leisurely activities.

Ok, that settles it

[Hermanas]

I'm moving to the Netherlands!

Re:Ok, that settles it

[erroneus]

You do realize that's where Peter Pan lives right?

Re:Ok, that settles it

[Hermanas]

I assume you're kidding, but you've got it confused with Never Land

dutch link

[Zappy]

http://www.bnr.nl/topic/politiek/2011/06/08/verhagen-vrije-toegang-internet-in-de-wet3

To quote Bugs Bunny

[cpu6502]

I like it.

(sits back to see how many recognize this 'toon)

Re:To quote Bugs Bunny

[Yvan256]

Also a Lt. Frank Drebin quote.

Good Job!

[milbournosphere]

US congress, I pray that you pay attention to this. Your constitutions actually WANT this type of legislation!

Re:Good Job!

[SilentStaid]

While I totally agree with you, I want to point out that the Dutch are terrible offenders when it comes to phone/connection tapping.

Re:Good Job!

[Anonymous Coward]

constituents ;)

Re:Good Job!

[Anonymous Coward]

Which constituents do you mean? The constituents that matter to them don't want it. Even though those particular constituents don't vote directly...

Only a small percentage of their other constituents (e.g., voters) truly care one way or the other.

Re:Good Job!

[Anonymous Coward]

US congress, I pray that you pay attention to this. Your constitutions actually WANT this type of legislation!

That would be "constituents" - the Constitution is a document and, as such, has no wants.

And not all of us out here think that it would necessarily be a good idea - or more specifically, the idea is good, the implementation may be somewhat less so.

And then there's the Law of Unintended Consequences which typically don't manifest themselves until we're well on our way down that road.

Does this still work if it is not ubiquitous

[softWare3ngineer]

so if an ISP is discriminating in the US (where your favorite services houses their servers) you service will still be throttled or potentially cut off. Its a good first step but net neutrality is a global problem and needs to be treated as such.

Re:Does this still work if it is not ubiquitous

[Obfuscant]

so if an ISP is discriminating in the US (where your favorite services houses their servers) you service will still be throttled or potentially cut off.

It's pretty hard for a Dutch person to have their ISP be located in the US. Unless they use a satellite service or have a leased, undersea cable. But yes, for a US user, this DUTCH law would have no effect.

This law deals with the ISP, not the servers you deal with. Where do you get the idea that "your favorite services" are required to provide service to you? If the iTunes store or whoever wants to block your IP, they have that right. What this law, and net neutrality in general, deals with is the ISP blocking your access to certain destinations, not those destinations blocking your access to their services.

For the life of me, I have no idea why a poster upthread thought this had something to do with "copyright owners". Net neutrality has nothing to do with copyright. Zip. Nada.

Re:Does this still work if it is not ubiquitous

[Rolgar]

He was saying if a Dutch citizen connects to a server in the U.S., the ISP that the server is connected to can throttle your traffic because they are exempt from Dutch laws.

Re:Does this still work if it is not ubiquitous

[Obfuscant]

He was saying if a Dutch citizen connects to a server in the U.S., the ISP that the server is connected to can throttle your traffic because they are exempt from Dutch laws.

I know what he was saying. And he's wrong.

If a person in NL is using a US ISP, then they've either gotten a satellite service based in the US or leased an undersea cable connection to a US ISP. Or they're making a really expensive dialup connection to the US. Otherwise, they're going to be using a Dutch ISP. Especially when we're talking about cellphone delivered internet service.

If you are in Holland and have a cellphone that can connect to a US carrier, you need to get a patent on that real quick. And you really will need something to protect you from the high levels of RF your phone must be emitting.

In any case, the proposed law says nothing about the services provided by "a server", only the ISP. As I said, iTunes or Google or any other service provider (not ISP) can block your IP address for any reason they want and you have nothing to say about it. It's only the ISP itself that would be prohibited from doing so. And if the law makes any sense, it will still allow QOS packet management based on deep inspection, as long as it deals with types of service and not the provider.

Ahh, I think I see now. You are trying to turn this into a discussion about the ISP that Google etc are connected to. Why would the ISP servicing Google, e.g., want to block Google's traffic? You think they want Google to use a different ISP and lose the money they make off that client? I doubt it. They'd just stop providing any service to Google. And then Google would give lots of money to another provider.

Lesson learned

[robot256]

Sounds like somebody forgot to pad their campaign checks to make up for the politicians' increased bills. Those are not the people you want to piss off with your anti-competitive money grabs.

Re:Lesson learned

[Jedi Alec]

Oh, there was 1 member of parliament who did her very best to defeat this (who conveniently happened to be a former lobbyist for our largest ISP) who happens to be a member of our currently largest political party.

She got *crucified*. Rarely have I seen so much ridicule. The second she started spouting bullshit all the nerds on Twitter started feeding just the right counterarguments to the opposition, it was a beautiful sight to behold indeed ;-)

Re:Lesson learned

[robot256]

Wow, that sounds like a sight indeed. Maybe sometime I'll have to leave the States so I can see a real democracy in action.

expensive

[Anonymous Coward]

i live in the Netherlands,it is very expensive to live here,in the north side it is cheaper but very dull...
Also the gas price is insane,1,65 for 1 liter,drugs are cheap...

chile was the first

[Anonymous Coward]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/07/13/2056218/Chile-First-To-Approve-Net-Neutrality-Law

On the downside

[elrous0]

Unfortunately, they also introduced a plan to make pot bars illegal for tourists.

Re:On the downside

[Haedrian]

Which gives you an additional reason to move there permanently.

Re:On the downside

[Abstrackt]

I knew there was a good reason I held on to my Dutch passport.

Re:On the downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Conversely, this creates a huge disincentive for many tourists to visit, but I guess a city like Amsterdam, which thrives on tourism, won't mind...

Re:On the downside

[Anonymous Coward]

Unless you are from a so called "non-western" country. If you are from one of such countries, they will do everything to kick you out. Even if you get your Phd from the Netherlands!

Re:On the downside

[Jedi Alec]

Fortunately said plan is encountering massive resistance from local governments, even when said governments are part of the same party that introduced the plan.

If the retards in Limburg want to close their coffeeshops, go for it, just one more reason not to go down there. But the folks in Amsterdam rather feel that having Snoop Dogg pop down there for a smoke is good fun, and they don't seem to have any intention to close things down, no matter what the national government may shout about it.

An amendment to an existing law!

[erroneus]

What a novel idea! I am sure others have thought of this already. It has frequently been pointed out that there is already law in place which prohibits telecoms from violating neutrality principles. Why not amend that law to include ISPs? Fundamentally, I already believe those laws apply to net neutrality as I don't see enough difference between the networks to justify different laws and precedent.

Wrist tapper

[Anonymous Coward]

US congress, I pray that you pay attention to this. Your constitutions actually WANT this type of legislation!

Sadly, it's unconstituental.

Re:Wrist tapper

[hedwards]

On precisely what basis is net neutrality unconstitutional?

Re:Wrist tapper

[Squiddie]

I recall something about regulating interstate commerce as part of the constitution. Am I wrong?

Plans didn't originate with the minister

[Anonymous Coward]

The minister was only "announced these plans" after a proposal by a non-government coalition of green and left-wing parties, which was shown to have the support of a large majority in parliament. The two government parties (we currently have a minority government) were (and still are) against it, but the minister realized he couldn't ignore such a large majority, and so announced that he's going to include the proposal in the overall package he's working on.

Ironically enough, the reason for the left wing parties to introduce the proposal was a too audacious attempt by the big ISP to introduce tiered service levels. That came back and bit them big time! (Let's hope ISPs in other countries don't learn from their mistake.)

Great Story

[DaMattster]

It highlights exactly what is wrong with the United States. The US has become corrupt and full of special interests. In the US, profits trump freedom and it is a sorry shame. Good for the Dutch for doing the right thing instead of the money-making thing.

Progress is progress.

[Zoson]

You go this way, I go that way. We'll find out which works better.

Unfortunately that's what it's going to come down to, and someone's going to suffer. That's America. Go capitalism! My quick buck at your expense.

Uh Oh

[SmallFurryCreature]

You won't like it you yank. Our beer got taste, our cheese is not just a barely edible plastic, our food isn't genetically manipulated, the soda contains real sugar, the women are the easiest in the world, the pot is so cheap just anyone can smoke it... eh... oh wait, I got it. We are SOCIALIST. You got to pay taxes here. Sales tax? 21%. (might 20% they keep on raising it recently).

That should scare of the Americans... well apart from the beer having taste etc etc. America is an interesting place to visit, just don't eat or drink anything that wasn't prepared by a first generation immigrant.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yea it has taste, luckily you forgot to define what kind of taste exactly... (the comment on the women is, good for the dutch, only a small exaggeration)

Regards, a neighbour from the south

Re:Uh Oh

[Hermanas]

Thanks for sharing. Too bad you assumed I live in America! But since you've scared off all the Americans, now I'm definitely coming, thanks!

Re:Uh Oh

[kermidge]

Let's see, a fifth of my income for all the goodies versus the same amount for.... I make it no contest. Do The Netherlands accept old burnt-out ex-hippies?

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not use a racial slur in your rant to round it all out, pig?

Re:Uh Oh

[DerPflanz]

No, up to 52% goes to taxes via income tax (the more you make, the more you pay relatively) and of the money you have left, 20% goes also to taxes through sales tax. Then we have dog taxes, car (double) taxes, mandatory health insurance, profit taxes, parking fees, etc.

I guess it's the price to pay for civilisation.

Re:Uh Oh

[keytoe]

Our beer got taste

Oakshire Brewery: 5 minutes away.

our cheese is not just a barely edible plastic

Rogue Creamery and Tillamook: Both 3 hours away.

our food isn't genetically manipulated

Horton Road Organic: Just one of many CSAs in town.

the soda contains real sugar

I cut out soda at the same time I cut out GMO food and other 'fake foods'. So high five to you on that one :)

the women are the easiest in the world

Debatable. There's something about 9 months of rain that causes promiscuity when the sun finally arrives.

the pot is so cheap just anyone can smoke it...

Not Legal, but not exactly rare either if you're into that sort of thing.

Lumping all of the states into a blanket statement like that is akin to me making claims about 'All of Europe'; They're bound to be inaccurate and make me look ignorant.

Re:Uh Oh

[Bucc5062]

Not me, not scared off at all. After my first visit to Germany I was hooked and upon return, could not drink beer back home. The EU drove me to hard liquor except when I get to go back and visit. I'd move there in a moment if I could figure out how to bring my horses over, own enough land to keep them, and get to work from my home from time to time. Alas, even the EU is not that progressive.

Re:Uh Oh

[houghi]

Yeah, your beer got taste compared to US beer. Compared to real beer Heineken is still piss.

Oh, I live in Belgium where the REAL beer comes from.

Re:Uh Oh

[blind biker]

Unfortunately, the new Dutch govt vowed to make selling pot illegal, even to Dutch citizens.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Czech Republic here.
Say, WHERE did you say, real beer comes from? ^^

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

I hear their men like it in the ass too. Fucking faggots.

Re:Uh Oh

[mwvdlee]

Real beer is brewed all over the world, even in the US, in small breweries run by talented enthausiasts.
But as far as "mass consumption" beer goes, The Dutch and German beers are by far the best. (though you are free to send me a few bottles and try and prove me wrong ;)).

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

+1

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

On the other hand some dutch political parties are currently voicing their opinion that all drugs should be decriminalized and regulated.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anspen]

No, they want to make it illegal to sell it to foreigners (to do that they want to make it a requirement to be a private club, where only members can buy pot. Presumably non residents wouldn't be allow to become a member).

Re:Uh Oh

[Yaa 101]

You are wrong, Dutch women are not that easy but mostly arrogant and stuck up into their status thing.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

compared to dutch internet your internet is shit.

still, I can see the dilemma in which country your better of.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Liquer is HARAAM.

Re:Uh Oh

[kermidge]

Thanks for the info. Still sounds a bargain to me. I had the chance to spend a few days there, mostly in Amsterdam, with my parents circa '53, and the warmth of my memories from that visit have stayed with me. I don't suppose I'd mind making some new ones. :)

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sales tax in The Netherlands is either 19% or 6%.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

We don't have a socialist government, it's right-wing (bordering on far-right). As a matter of fact, the only true left-wing government was at least 30 years ago and even then it was centre-left. Just sayin'.

Oh, and the sales-tax is 19%.

Apart from this, i would seriously reconsider moving to NL as there has been an onslaught of people going full-retard. Imagine Tea Baggers representing the 2nd party in terms of electorate. That's sentiment that's going to stay for a while because it's based on irrational behaviour instead of policy.

Re:Uh Oh

[Neil Boekend]

Hei**ken (sorry, I'm not allowed to curse) is not "real beer", it misses the crucial ingredient "taste" and they replaced it with "headache".
I do agree Belgium has way better beers (no contest) but please compare with a decent Dutch beer like Hertog Jan. Not as good as a decent Belgian beer, but it gets closer. For a good beer the special types are way more interesting anyway, and Hei***en doesn't have many.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, and tell me one thing other than weather and taxes that we can really complain about? Our roads are near perfect (although crowded), our healthcare has been one of the best in the world (although it's getting worse by the year), nobody has to be poor. Education is accessible for everyone, even without income (a student pays $2000 tuition for a year in university, and yes we are complaining about that: way to expansive).

Re:Uh Oh

[daid303]

Rogue Creamery and Tillamook: Both 3 hours away.

You do understand that if you drive in the same direction in The Netherlands that there is a 90% chance that you left the country? Saying that something is "only" 3 hours away makes it long distance for the dutch.

Re:Uh Oh

[mcvos]

We're pretty big on telecommuting, but space for horses is rare. Though small farmers keep going out of business, so you might be able to take over a farm.

Re:Uh Oh

[mcvos]

Do The Netherlands accept old burnt-out ex-hippies?

Another one? We already have cities full of those.

Re:Uh Oh

[mcvos]

No, up to 52% goes to taxes via income tax

That's only the highest scale, paid over only part of your income. With all the tax deductibles, nobody actually pays more than 40% tax here.

Re:Uh Oh

[mcvos]

I can imagine Oregon is to the US what Netherland is to Europe. At least in some aspects. Oregon is a lot less crowded, and probably less of a trade hub.

Re:Uh Oh

[mcvos]

It's always been like that. And the end result is always that it's officially illegal and in practice not so much.

Re:Uh Oh

[blind biker]

In the first phase it would be not allowed for non-residents (you can be non-Dutch as long as you have a residence permit), but I am 100% sure that the intention is, in the second phase, to make it completely illegal to get cannabis, regardless of residence.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds just like Canada. And we are farther north of the USA with resources that we will eventually stop sharing with the USA, as we will need them for ourselves. We are semi-socialist, not like McArthur in his day that generated fear mongering.
We even have medicare. If I lose my job, have no medical insurance and I get sick to needing hospitalization, I wont go bankrupt.

That is it.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

Non-GM food, aka lower quality and more expensive. Yep, really missing out there huh.

You also forgot to mention you get murdered for insulting islam there.

Re:Uh Oh

[jwhitener]

Hehe, I'm sitting here in Portland OR and was just going to type basically the same thing:)

But they do have us beat on a number of things like unemployment rate, social liberties, etc.. If I ever moved out of the states, it would most likely be to the Netherlands.

Re:Uh Oh

[Anonymous Coward]

LMAO!!

MOD UP!!!!!

Good thing is...

[MonoSynth]

This idea comes frome one of the most corporate-friendly governments the country has had in a long time. The three ruling parties are all right-wing:
1. VVD: liberal, capitalist, pro privatization of state-run companies;
2. CDA: christian democrats. They're the initiators of this law;
3. PVV: anti-muslim, anti-immigration, populist. Not really part of the government, but they promised to agree on most things (except for their anti-Muslim stance).

The opposing parties are labour, socialist, environmentalist, liberal and two small christian parties.

I can't imagine why any of those parties would vote against this law (except for one or two small ones), so I would be very, very surprised if this law won't be passed.

Re:Good thing is...

[MonoSynth]

Correction:

The law was initiated by the opposing left-wing parties (as I expected). The (CDA)minister is very supportive, but the two biggest parties both say that they will await EU research on the matter. So it's not done yet.

The telco's are not happy.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

The weird thing is that the VVD (the biggest party in the ruling coalition) is (still) against the proposal while all other parties (including the opposition) are in favour of the proposal. The proposal has actually been put on the agenda by the parliament and not by the cabinet, after KPN (the biggest telco in NL) announced plans to start charging for whatsapp and for skype. This lead to many debates/protests on several online discussion forums and to strong debates in the parliament, whereby the parliament asked the minister of telecommunications to intervene, who in first instance was very reluctant to oppose KPNs plans but after more pressure from the parliament eventually changed his standpoint. Hence the proposal for net neutrality that's now on the table and will indeed very likely be voted into law by the parliament.

Re:Good thing is...

[tulcod]

Not calling the PVV anti-islam sickens me. They literally call the islam "a big danger", so shut the hell up with your PVV-friendly stance. They're fucking racist and they know it, now stop voting for them plzkthxbye

Re:Good thing is...

[mwvdlee]

That being said, all but the most extremist right wing parties in the Netherlands would still be considered far left wing when positioned in the US political spectrum. (though this may partially be because the left-right distinction doesn't easily translate between different countries)

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

You moron. Stop equating a religion with the people who believe in it. It's possible to be a Scientologist and a nice person, while Scientology is rotten to the core. Also, since when is being against Islam a sign of racism? It's not a race. I will never stop voting for them based on strawman arguments.

Re:Good thing is...

[SwedishPenguin]

Ah the joys of a working democracy, over here the right-wing government coalition pretty much merged into what they call an "alliance", and seem to think that one of them voting against the others on even a single issue where the parties had vastly different stances before the "alliance" will somehow completely topple the government.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

One member of parliament (Afke Schaart) who worked, until recently, for one of the largest telco's in the Netherlands tried
to stop the network neutrality, she failed :-)

Netherlands - Telco's 1 - 0

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

actually the idea came from d66 social liberals,the sp(socialist party), the pvda (social democrates) and the green left party (ex communist party). Maxime verhagen said yes to it and than so did the vvd who were actually for letting the telecom companys invade our privacy but later changed their midn somehow.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

More correct:
The law was initiated by D66 (social liberals), co-signed by PvdA (labor party), PVV (conservative, anti-muslim) and the SP (socialist party).
The two ruling parties, CDA (Cristian democrats) and the VVD (liberal party) are divided. The CDA is supportive and the VVD is agianst. Afke Schaart from the VVD is a former lobbyist for a large telco (KPN) and she does her best to confuse the other parties into opposing the law. Most criticism on the law is based on a fundamental lack of knowledge about technology ("harmful cookies, like adware, malware and trojans" or "the DPI protocol"). Except for one party, the SGP (Reformed Political Party) who wants an option for an ISP to filter offensive content who want that "protection".

The vote is next Tuesday and it looks good for net neutrality in the Netherlands. But strange things can hapen in a few days.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

[quote]The telco's are not happy.[/quote]

Which is fair enough. First of all they get screwed out of huge sums of money for spectrum and now they get screwed again with additional rules on top of that to prevent them from protecting their investments.

Consumers may be happy with this decision now, but lets just wait how happy they will be when the telcos change strategy (e.g. higher fees and data caps) to get their investments back.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Correction: the law was initiated by the current government, the amendement for net-neutrality was initiated by the left.

And yes, we are not quite there yet. And... one of the biggest opponents used to work for the biggest telco.

But - being dutch - I'm quite happy, no more playing around with tcp-ports for vpn's and sip. And the telco's are now finally starting to introduce European data-roaming. So now I don't have to pay € 3 /MB anymore for everytime I happen to come too close to the Belgian or German border.

Finally, I can take a trip to Spain and check my email without being afraid that the roaming charges will be more than the plane-ticket and hotelroom combined.... If that doesn't show you that left to their on devices the Telco's will charge whatever they want - because (in Holland) there are only three operaters and it's a monopoly in every sense.

Real market (you know, fruit vegetables, shouting men) don't have to be regulated, but market with only three players and a very high entry level (capital investment) do.

Truly 100% free markets don't exists - and the americans invented anti-trust laws.

So, come on over to our socialist paradise, and surf our coaches -
you'll get used to the weather (which is excellent today)

Re:Good thing is...

[MonoSynth]

[quote] but lets just wait how happy they will be when the telcos change strategy (e.g. higher fees and data caps) to get their investments back.

With the current scheme, the users who still use sms pay for the too cheap data plans of others. And the majority with low/occasional data usage pay for the minority that use 2+GB per month. That's not very fair. Prices will rise, bandwith caps will be tightened, but I'd rather pay a fair price than being robbed by insane sms rates, roaming charges and blocked services.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Wrong, those parties are against. The opposition formed this proposition. A CDA minister is willing to make it happen, although his party is not, neither is VVD.
Specifically the VVD will vote against, because they are for the rich and wealthy. This idea will harm the business of the giant telecom companies, who are eager to ask more money for less product.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

1. VVD's member of parliament Afke Schaart had a counter proposal favouring the telco's. Her previous job was head of public relations for the Dutch telco KPN. After a some outrage, the proposal was dropped.
2. The CDA didn't initate the law. The proposal (the Braakhuis amendment) was written by Bruno Braakhuis (Groenlinks, green left party), Martijn van Dam (PVDA, social democrats) and Sharon Gesthuizen (SP, socialist party). The CDA, VVD, and SGP did not support this proposal. The CDA Minister of Economics affairs Maxime Verhagen has been very sympathetic towards netneutrality.
3. PVV has shown to be sympathetic and supportive of the proposal.

The initial proposal: http://ikregeer.nl/documenten/kst-24095-281

The Christian parties (CDA, SGP) had some issues with filtering, they wanted to maintain the possibility for ISP's to filter traffic on 'inappropriate content'.
For the VVD.. well.. we'll see what happens, considering the lobbying from the telco's.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, VVD is opposed to the proposal. It was introduced by the center liberal party, with support of Greens, Labor and Socialists. The anti-immigration PVV supported it. The CDA tried to stall.

VVD is in fact aimed at supporting only big corporations, if need be over the backs of smaller companies and innovation.

But I'm a green, so I would say that.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

PVV isnt anti muslim, they do want to be more strict on immigration since we get so many already. People are too quick to shout racism/discrimination, while the fitna video did show some bad parts of the koran it said to remove those bad influence parts lies with the believers themselves. And I agree, in a civilized world those parts that go against modern humanity rights should be removed. To say that you are anti muslim from this is a bit..

Re:Good thing is...

[mcvos]

VVD is the most corporate-friendly party, and as I understand, they're the only ones who are really against this law. PVV had already had already voice some careful support for it a while back (though that means little of course), but with the CDA on board, there's not much that the PM's party can do to stop it. Except for backroom politics of course. So who knows what will happen.

Re:Good thing is...

[mcvos]

You moron. Stop equating a religion with the people who believe in it.

Tell that to Geert Wilders. He's the one going on constantly about how muslims can never respect democracy and that sort of stuff.

Re:Good thing is...

[mcvos]

green left party (ex communist party).

Not just ex-communist. Also ex-pacifist and ex-Christian. They're still environmentalist, fortunately.

Re:Good thing is...

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, not completely accurate. Not-so-right-wing parties (such as D66) are also supporting Net Neutrality. Plus; what we call right wing in Europe is still pretty leftish to American standards. :-)

The US congress has been paying attention

[SmallFurryCreature]

That is why the US has invasion plans for Holland ready and had them ready for a long time.

Nothing to scare the US like a country that isn't following US doctrine all the way. Note there are no invasion plans for say North-Korea or other places that are blot on humanity but they do have invasion plans to "liberate" Americans from the International Court in The Hague by invading a friendly country.

Dear US voter, if you want your country to stop sucking, stop voting for the kind of people that let this pass. Ergo, on the voting ballot: None of the above.

This will work in most countries, most election systems require a certain percentage of the VOTERS to actually vote, enough people invalidate their vote, the elections would have to be held again rather then just going on as if legit with a majority NOT voting because non-voters are rare counted.

Re:The US congress has been paying attention

[Duradin]

Canada had plans to invade and capture North Dakota up until a decade or so ago.

You might want to look up WWII as to why America has had plans for how to invade Europe.

Re:The US congress has been paying attention

[CCarrot]

Canada had plans to invade and capture North Dakota up until a decade or so ago.

Take Minot? Why not!

Re:The US congress has been paying attention

[Anonymous Coward]

AC because I'm already modded:
I think it makes sense to have detailed invasion plans so you can be ready to go ASAP if the stuff really does hit the fan (this doesn't count of course)
For example, the US was ready to attack Afghanistan less than 4 weeks after 9/11, which seems quick for the government, especially once you consider the time it would take to mobilize to act upon the plans.

Re:The US congress has been paying attention

[Jedi Alec]

Puhlease. The Netherlands are crawled up so far the US's asshole we can fucking see Canada from here.

If the US says jump, half our cabinet starts beating each other's brains in for the opportunity to be the first to ask "how high" and maybe get in a little quality time with The First Weiner.

Moot point.

[RightSaidFred99]

Telecom companies will just move to charging by bandwidth if they need to. Telecom companies should just give up fighting net neutrality here in the US too and just say "OK, fine. We'll just raise prices considerably."

Re:Moot point.

[BradleyUffner]

Telecom companies will just move to charging by bandwidth if they need to. Telecom companies should just give up fighting net neutrality here in the US too and just say "OK, fine. We'll just raise prices considerably."

You think ISPs are against net neutrality for bandwidth reasons? HA! They see hugely popular sites like YouTube, and FaceBook and see an opportunity for profit by charging more to access those sites. They also seem to think that they have a right to hold the bandwidth of sites that they have no agreements with hostage if they aren't paid. Or the ISP also operates their own cable network or VoIP service and wants to charge their competitors more. This is all about seeing a way to squeeze every drop of profit out of consumers and competitors that they can.

Re:Moot point.

[Anonymous Coward]

Good points, I agree with everything you say though I will add something. It can also be used to restrict certain types of content. Ddon't think in technical terms like bandwidth, competitors products, or quality of service, but in political terms like dissenting information, whistle-blowing, and reporting of scandals. In short terms NN can be used to implement the "Chinese firewall" in the US.

Re:Moot point.

[RightSaidFred99]

No, they're against it for profit reasons obviously. And if they can't make the profit by making deals with the content providers they'll just go after the end users. People won't think "Net Neutrality" is so great when ISPs just dump uncapped bandwidth and charge by the gigabyte instead.

Re:Moot point.

[jonwil]

Instead of being non-neutral, just start charging people for the bandwidth they use just like you pay for electricity, water and gas.

Here in Australia, I get 130GB of data per month to use how I see fit with no restrictions or blocks. If I decide I need more (and am willing to pay for it), I can move up to a higher tier plan. There are lower tier plans also. But none of these plans (or those from many other ISPs) have anything non-neutral about them.

Needs to be law every ware to stop ISP fraud

[Anonymous Coward]

Excellent law!
I pay for my connection with a set speed and how I use it is my business not the ISP's.
If I buy a cheese burger and try to eat all of it Micky-Ds doesn't go crying to congress about it, they make more.
If I buy 2 BK doesn't throw a tantrum they make more.
If I eat it fast Wendy doesn't get upset they make more.
I pay my money they provide the goods.
ISPs have to do the same.
An ISP should not be able to censor my connection or try to double dip by extorting content providers who pay for there connection at the other end.
If an ISP sells a service they should be able to provide it.
IPSs crying about band width hogs is fraud on there part for overselling capacity.
If they over sell capacity have to increase capacity.
An ISP throttling a connection is no different than a gas station selling a tank of gas and only giving you a fraction of what you pay for when you have the balls to actually try to use it.

More information regarding the amendment Verhoeven

[Anonymous Coward]

I just copied and pasted the first paragraph from the link in the article when submitting, but I didn't think it would be posted this way. I think some more information is required for a proper news article/discussion. Therefore, a short summary of the law in question.

For Dutch readers, here is the amendment in Dutch: https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-content/uploads/Amendement-van-het-lid-Verhoeven-c.s..pdf

Summary for English readers:

It will be forbidden by law to block or induce a bandwidth limitation on select internet IP addresses/websites/applications. Unless:
- the blocking or capping reduces congestion, but every type of service still has to be treated equally
- for the integrity or safety of the network and service of the provider
- to block unwanted communication stated that the client has explicitly asked so
- has to be done by court order

There is some more in depth information what internet access really means, and it also states that providers may block everything, providing it's for example a VoIP only subscription. It's not allowed to offer an internet subscription while blocking certain stuff, but the other way around thus still will be legal. Also it's ofcourse still allowed to give an overall bandwidth cap or monthly data cap.

All in all I think it's a pretty solid amendment.

Not the normal ISP's

[Anonymous Coward]

Its the mobile telco's that want to do a DPI and bill you based on that.

Freedom?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this equated to more freedom? It's less freedom for the people who actually produce and deliver the services. Limiting the producers leads to stagnation of new ideas. No ISP will ever try to develop a new or unique service again because they'll be forced to allow everyone who copies them to use their network to provide the same service.

Re:Freedom?

[gabebear]

This certainly does seem to be a step backwards to me. Will ISPs be allowed to block port 25(SMTP)? I would think ISPs will definitely have to forget about prioritization of HTTP traffic over torrent/VOIP/encrypted traffic... fun times for the Dutch... Blanket blacklist for SMTP servers in the Netherlands and choked connections for regular surfing are the first things that come to mind.

I'm interested exactly how they are proposing to guarantee net neutrality by law. There are very few details.

Sign me up!

[GrumpySteen]

Legalized prostitution -and- net neutrality? Immigrating to another country has never been quite so attractive.

Re:Sign me up!

[hedwards]

And as a result they have serious problems with human trafficking in sex slaves. The idea behind it wasn't to legalize prostitution so much as improve the lives of prostitutes. They recognized that it was unlikely that they would managed to stop it so they tried to ameliorate the situation. Unfortunately, that's just caused problems with human trafficking.

I realize that this is libertarian /., but let's not kid ourselves about the real consequences of legalized prostitution in that sense. It's not a bunch of women choosing to go into prostitution, I'm sure some do, it's more common for it to be a horrific form of exploitation. And no, I don't think that it's any less so when it's men that are selling their bodies.

Re:Sign me up!

[GrumpySteen]

Whooooosh!

Re:Sign me up!

[Neil Boekend]

One of the reasons for the legalization was to prevent the human trafficking. Now all the work environment law's apply. The cops are quite busy trying to remove the illegal establishments and the prostitutes in the legal ones are protected by law (from physical abuse, long hours, getting beat up when quitting and stuff like that).
dunno if it actually works (didn't check on that), but the idea was good.

Re:Sign me up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget downloading is ALWAYS legal in the Netherlands (uploading copyrighted material can off course be illegal)

Re:Sign me up!

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't forget the legalized: Euthanasia, Abortion and Marihuana (Civilization peaks here).

Re:Sign me up!

[mcvos]

Only for music and movies. Downloading games is illegal.

In depth on the amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

I just copied and pasted the first paragraph from the link in the article when submitting, but I didn't think it would be posted this way. I think some more information is required for a proper news article/discussion. Therefore, a short summary of the law in question.

For Dutch readers, here is the amendment in Dutch: https://www.bof.nl/live/wp-content/uploads/Amendement-van-het-lid-Verhoeven-c.s..pdf

Summary for English readers:

It will be forbidden by law to block or induce a bandwidth limitation on select internet IP addresses/websites/applications. Unless:
- the blocking or capping reduces congestion, but every type of service still has to be treated equally
- for the integrity or safety of the network and service of the provider
- to block unwanted communication stated that the client has explicitly asked so
- has to be done by court order

There is some more in depth information what internet access really means, and it also states that providers may block everything, providing it's for example a VoIP only subscription. It's not allowed to offer an internet subscription while blocking certain stuff, but the other way around thus still will be legal. Also it's ofcourse still allowed to give an overall bandwidth cap or monthly data cap.

All in all I think it's a pretty solid amendment. Submitted by the four left wing parties: D66, PvDA, SP and Groenlinks

Re:In depth on the amendment

[Anonymous Coward]

Will it be allowed to increase latency on certain services?

Test bed.

[MaWeiTao]

Actually, if it goes through it might be a good test bed. We'll get to see the implications of such a law, positive or negative. Although, the implementation may vary in the States and there may be different social and economic forces in play. Still, could be informative.

They'll have to compete on network quality now

[Xordin]

Telco's are basically searching for a way to get a share of Google's profits. The plan was to introduce new subscriptions that would allow them to block Google. Unless Google agreed to pay them per search.

This wouldn't work if there was real competition. But there are just 3 telco's and they're all hurt by decreasing income form voice and sms.

This law will encourage telecoms to compete on bandwidth and network quality instead of financial trickery and monopoly abuse. Should be a good thing for consumers.

Re:They'll have to compete on network quality now

[mcvos]

In this case, it's not so much about Google's profits, but about stifling competition with their own services. The already provide voice (phone) and texting (sms). The sewrvices they want to charge for are Skype (voice) and WhatsApp (texting), using their (relatively) cheap data connection, without paying their more expensive voice and sms rates.

You had 100%

[SuperKendall]

I cut out soda at the same time I cut out GMO food and other 'fake foods'. So high five to you on that one :)

Nope. We can easily get soda from Mexico that uses real sugar.

And I mean the main ones, Coke, Pepsi, etc. not some dicey thing like "ElPunumbrianOke".

Great point about lumping all of the U.S. into the same bucket being like applying any rule to all of Europe based on state.

Tools

[SuperKendall]

The law was initiated by the opposing left-wing parties (as I expected).

And will end up benefitting only the companies. When the internet is regulated, you'll find wonderful controls can be implemented on it, say for the movie industries.

I give you five years at the outside. Probably more like three.

I'll keep my freedom thanks, and chuckle as I watch your decline.

Re:Tools

[mcvos]

There is already plenty of other regulation. This new law is no precedent for government interference in how users can use the net. It does set a precedent for how corporations can restrict usage of the net, so it's all positive, as far as I can see.

Re:Tools

[SuperKendall]

It does set a precedent for how corporations can restrict usage of the net

Which has not actually happened yet, anywhere.

Meanwhile what it WILL do is enable lots more control over you by companies. It has exactly the opposite effect of the one desired.

The fence you are putting up? You are looking at it from the INSIDE.

Mobile phones

[Anspen]

The apparent cause of the amendment is interesting. Net neutrality has of course been an issue for some time. The reason the Dutch Parliament (and the relevant minister) are making a move now seems to be the result of the discovery a few weeks back that (at least) one of the mobile network carriers used deep packet inspection to block the use of Skype and Whatsapp. The company argued that they had to since people where making significantly less calls and send far fewer text messages.

So while the Dutch parliament does seem to be less in the pockets of major companies, a part of the difference between US and the Netherlands seems to be the argumentation used by the companies. Basically they explicitly argued they wanted to block certain apps because they where cheaper for consumers. Which is a far worse argument than the one that has been used by many US opponents of net neutrality, e.i. "Google/youtube/etc. are using soooo much bandwidth we have to make them pay for it”. Which is a bullshit argument, but easier to hide behind.

Re:Mobile phones

[BlueParrot]

Which is a far worse argument than the one that has been used by many US opponents of net neutrality, e.i. "Google/youtube/etc. are using soooo much bandwidth we have to make them pay for itâ. Which is a bullshit argument, but easier to hide behind.

Part of the difference might be that european countries are far less forgiving when companies don't behave ( just look at the reaction when Microsoft failed to comply with EU competition law ), and the last thing a company wants is to piss off the people who have the authority to mess up your business.

Basically, because European governments are more willing to regulate corporate enterprises and penalize them when they do wrong, they have to be more honest because the possibility of getting a kick up the rear when they don't play nice is much more probable.

Re:Mobile phones

[Anonymous Coward]

Quite a bad case of foot-in-mouth this, actually. It all started with the major local telecom operator's CEO giving a speech in London and proclaiming proudly how they had started using DPI as one of the first companies in the world for this end. This was immediately countered by Vodafone's local boss, who said nothing new under the sun: so did they.

Then of course, they found out not many people in the Netherlands actually thought this was a great idea. Paved the way for legislation.

So I want a big cheer for the great leaders of Big Telecom in the Netherlands. They have shown great excellence in the field of foot-in-mouth. Is there an award for this?

Acte van Verlatinghe

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but the Dutch seem to have beaten the English too. The Acte van Verlatinghe (Act of abjuration) was the first declaration of independence, 1581.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Abjuration

Funny thing...

[thrill12]

...before you move over here we expect you to learn Nederlands goed ;=) (you even have to do an exam in a Dutch Embassy of your choice)

Dumb idea though. But the good news is: as long as you are higher educated and have a good income nobody gives a f... if you only talk English.

Re:Funny thing...

[FST777]

The exam is only for non-"western world" immigrants. That includes Japan but excludes Mexico and our former colony Indonesia. Basically, "western world" is defined based on wealth.

Live is good here, but immigration laws are highly discriminatory.

Re:Funny thing...

[mcvos]

But the good news is: as long as you are higher educated and have a good income nobody gives a f... if you only talk English.

Let's be honest. We speak English (or something we think resembles English) to everybody. Dutch is practically impossible to learn because no Dutchman will speak it to you.

Re:Funny thing...

[Ironhandx]

This seems to be true. I had enough trouble trying to worm a few tiny tiny pieces out of one Dutchman >_

Re:Funny thing...

[Cimexus]

To be honest, as a native English speaker who has spoken with many Dutch people online (I was in a predominantly Dutch guild in an MMO for many years and spent a lot of time on Ventrilo), their English is by and large excellent. Better than most idiots here seem to be capable of.

Re:Funny thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Belgians are convinced they speech better Dutch than the Dutch.
The Dutch just think they sound funny.

But...

[thrill12]

...the significance of The Netherlands on the "internet-scale" is a bit higher than Chile. Let's at least hope this is not the last country adapting these laws.

Re:But...

[mcvos]

With Neelie Kroes handling internet and communication for the EU, I think there's a fair chance of this spreading to the rest of the EU. I hope it does.

Erm, you're wrong.

[thrill12]

You have been smoking too much my friend (Dutch here, politically involved, I hope I know what I am talking about): The law *addendum* to save Net Neutrality was instigated by D66, a liberal progressive party, supported by GroenLinks (left-wing libertarian progressive green), PvdA (left-wing social democratic), PVV (far right wing). CDA and VVD actually oppose this addendum to the law: they did propose a change to the law but it was soft and not very helpful in saving Net Neutrality. But, as CDA+VVD constitute the minority of the parliament, they will not have the power to stop it. Surprising enough their "virtual coalition partner" (minority government...) *is* supporting the plan of the left parties - highly confusing for some of us (me including), but good to see that this does topic does live both left and right of the center wing (traditionally that had been the CDA, but they have turned right-wing nowadays). Thanks for the troll though, you made me react :)

Re:Erm, you're wrong.

[mvdwege]

I think he's just a bit confused. It is common for proposals to come from the governing parties, and it is exceedingly uncommon for proposals that actually have a majority to come from the opposition.

So to a naÃve viewer, it might seem that the current coalition proposed this amendment.

Mart

It's not all good in the Netherlands

[dutchwhizzman]

In the Netherlands we do have the ISPs mandated to share IP-customer data every 24 hours, automatically. The po-po can just look up your IP and find out who you are without a subpoena. We have more phone and Internet taps than the former Warschau pact had, or any country currently has. We have mandatory logging of all IP information for at least 12 months. We have mandatory Cell-tower logging for at least 12 months. Basically, if you have your cell on, they can tell what area you have been in up to a year ago. Also, we have quite a few camera's on freeways logging your license plate and that information is also stored for a long time. We have our own MAFIAA alike organization taking down websites without due process. We have plenty of repression here. The guys that are now probably going to give us net-neutrality in the law, were advocating against it just a very short while ago. They are fickle and may change their mind once again.

I want my cold war back. The enemy was far away and we could enjoy our freedom. Now that they invented the replacement for that, "terrorism", they are repressing us so hard, we might as well give the terrorists what they want, much cheaper and the same end result.

Why I want Non-Neutral Internet Connections

[billstewart]

I want my VOIP connection and most UDP to get higher priority than web pages. I want web pages to get higher priority than Bittorrent. I might even want small web pages to load faster than YouTube; I'm not sure what the technically best prioritization is on that. I don't want laws that prevent service providers from offering me that kind of service.

There are kinds of net neutrality that I do want - I don't want my ISP to refuse to carry Google because Google isn't buying transit from them directly or competes with services they sell, and I don't want my ISP to give higher priority to Microsoft or Yahoo than Google because Google isn't paying them enough. On the other hand, if Akamai wants to pay my ISP to put a bunch of their cache boxes in the ISP's network so that they can make some web pages go faster (by caching them closer to me), I'm all in favor of that.

I don't expect my legislators, or even their staffs, to understand the technology well enough to make policy decisions like that. I don't always understand it well enough myself, and I've been working in this field for 30 years. And you know how newspaper articles never describe events you were at the way you thought they happened? Legislators are even less accurate than newspaper reporters. I just wish businesses would stop offering bad service because they're greedy (as opposed to offering better service because they're greedy), and I wish governments would stop making rules just because they want us to know they're doing something.

Re:Why I want Non-Neutral Internet Connections

[Anonymous Coward]

The reason for this amendment was a recent announcement from the incumbent telecom provider in the Netherlands that
they would start to block VoIP and chat programs in the base internet service (and introduce a surcharge for re-enabling
them) because such services cost them revenue in traditional phonecalls and short message service usage.

This was widely seen as an intrusion into privacy of the users and a dangerous slope to get on.