EU Commissioner: I Will End Net Neutrality Waiting Game

An anonymous reader sends this excerpt from ZDNet: "Europeans are a step closer to seeing new net neutrality rules put in place, after the release of an EU regulators' report on how often ISPs and operators throttle their services. On Tuesday, digital agenda commissioner Neelie Kroes said the release of the report from by the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) means she will make recommendations to the EU on preserving net neutrality, which aims to make sure ISPs do not unfairly restrict customers from accessing the service or application or their choice. 'BEREC has today provided the data I was waiting for (PDF). For most Europeans, their internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers,' Kroes said in a statement. 'Given that BEREC's findings highlight a problem of effective consumer choice, I will prepare recommendations to generate more real choices and end the net neutrality waiting game in Europe,' she added."

Comments

an aside...

[Anonymous Coward]

For most Europeans, their internet access works well most of the time. But these findings show the need for more regulatory certainty and that there are enough problems to warrant strong and targeted action to safeguard consumers,

As an aside, really: has a regulatory agency ever NOT found a need for more regulations and regulatory actions? Just seems kind of dog-bites-man.

USA! Wait... Home of the...?

[killfixx]

I've been trying to wrap my head around this for some time now.

As the internet becomes more important for global commercial and cultural enrichment, the US insists on stripping away rights and freedoms that we, as Americans, have come to cherish.

And 99%* of Americans couldn't possibly care less. (*hyperbole)

Yet, the more restrictive and draconian our policies become, the more that the EU seems to protecting these rights.

The only reason I can see is that Americans have a different societal outlook. Americans value possession (having stuff) above all else.
It's all about our stuff. We are the pre-schoolers (kindergarten, etc...) of global politics. Both literally (youngest 1st world country) and figuratively (we are the whiniest bunch of brats). How many Americans can name 5 neighbors (different households)? How many Americans still eat a weekly meal with non-nuclear family members?

I love America, (it's where I keep all my stuff) but enough is enough. I'm seriously considering emigrating. I live in New England and from what I've seen and read, northern Europe (Denmark, Finland, Norway, etc...) all seem to have "similar" weather and significantly better socio-political climates.

This country needs a serious re-tuning. Not sure how or by who, but please let it be for the better.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...?

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, but keep in mind that in europe the culture is different, the role of the government is far bigger than here (as well as taxes), an europeans like it.

For example, an average employee in Germany pays more than 40% of his/her income in taxes. Of course they have public healthcare, a generous public pension system, etc... and nobody (not even the conservative parties) wants to privatize them, that's not the kind of "freedom" that they like.

You will never ever hear europeans saying bizarre things like "billionaires should pay lower tax rates because they create jobs", it would be considered a joke there. And the word "socialist" is not considered an insult.

Going to europe means accepting a completely different way of life.

Re:USA! Wait... Home of the...?

[FridayBob]

Yet, the more restrictive and draconian our policies become, the more that the EU seems to protecting these rights.

My commiserations. Being Dutch, I felt proud today, because of both of the Dutch Government rejecting ACTA and Neelie Kroes (who is also Dutch) standing up for Net Neutrality. But, I'm also an American, so I find it depressing when I read about how badly the Internet is being treated in the country of its birth. The only things to cheer about are when really bad laws manage to be defeated at the last moment. Still, having spent the first 13 years of my life there, part of me will always want to believe that America is the #1 defender of freedom and democracy in the world.

Intellectually, however, I know that isn't really true anymore and hasn't been for quite some time. More than ever before, America now resembles a plutocracy. Sure, all Americans are equal, but the ones with lots of money are definitely more equal than the rest. Of course, it's still a democracy, so statistically this isn't always reflected in the guy who lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue, but just take a look at Congress: the majority of those folks are there because they agreed to primarily to look after the financial interests of the few (in which case everything else comes a distant second).

Therefore, it's not really a surprise to see the Internet being treated poorly in the good ol' U.S. of A. -- too many Corporations are just not happy with it. They would agree with the Chinese that it affords the common man too much freedom; during arguments, they've even mentioned the Great Firewall of China as an example of how large-scale Internet censorship can also be made to work in America. So, what can we do about it?

The only real solution that I can think of is to tackle the root the problem: to get money out of politics. Take a look at this book. That's one set of solutions; it may not be the best, but nothing less than real campaign finance reform is what Americans should aim for. If successful, I think we can expect American politicians to become rather different animals: ones that will actually be capable of rational thought, finding common ground with their opponents, compromising when necessary and otherwise just plain capable of making good decisions.

How is blocking websites not a NN issue?

[betterunixthanunix]

From TFA:

Third, consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldnâ(TM)t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldnâ(TM)t be marketed as âoeInternetâ at all, at least not without any upfront qualification. Regulators should have that kind of control over how ISPs market the service.

(Emphasis mine)

Sounds to me like no ISP in any country that orders a block on, say, TBP, should be able to market itself as providing Internet access under this proposal.