Slashdot Mirror
EU Wants To Enshrine Network Neutrality In Law
Bismillah writes "Following the example of the Dutch, who enacted laws supporting network neutrality, the European Union is now looking at doing the same. They are pushing for an end to the throttling and blocking of services such as Skype and Whatsapp by providers hoping to drive users to their own competing services. The EU also wants a service transparency requirement for ISPs, so people know what they're buying — like minimum speed. It'll be interesting to see how this pans out."
Looks like Europeans are caring more about their freedoms than Americans.
So are you telling me US politicians are better? Elected by the people but actually serving big companies? At least with the Europeans we don't yet know for sure if they serve the people :D
European Union politicians simply cannot be trusted as none have been elected by the people, so one can only wonder whose interests they serve.
That is quite a blanket statement. Members of the EU Parliament are politicians and directly elected by the people, so it is also wrong. Note that I am not saying that the European Union does not have serious democratic problems. The EU Parliament holds few of the powers usually attributed to parliaments and the EU Commission is appointed by the EU governments, so it is "buffered" against the people.
The truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head
[Citation needed]
The EU-parliament is elected by the European people. The EU-commission is initiated by the governments of the EU-member states, which are either directly elected by the people or elected by their national parliaments. furthermore, the commission have to be approved by the parliament. It is true, however, that the EU-commission should be more transparent and it would be a great step forward if it would be initiated by the parliament or elected by the public. These changes would have been possible in the Lisbon-Agreement, but some member state thought that would be too much Europeanization. The EU would then be equally or sometimes even more legit than some national parliaments and governments. And we will end to be [name your nationality].
I personally think, that is rubbish. You do not lose your identity just because there is not country attached to it. I am Swabian (South-West German folks) and are presently living in North-Germany. Of course I have a German passport, but I still feel like a Swabian and a German and a European (in descending order ;-)).
Damn right! This is Brussels bureaucracy gone mad! What's next? Banning heavy metals from childrens toys? How dare those damn Eurocrats protect my interests!
There is Kroes and a number of others who want to keep the internet free, so it can defend democratic values and such.
And then there are those who are bought by lobbyists, and who support the ISPs as well as the music/movie industry and wish to tie it down and control it, in the name of The Economy and Profit.
It's a good thing that Neelie Kroes is quite a big shot in the EU government (the "European Commission digital agenda vice-president" is important in this matter)...
Let them first stop censoring the internet.
Before you start accusing the Netherlands or the EU over being overzealus about this, consider that these laws were a response to the biggest mobile internet provider in the Netherlands announcing plans to block WhatsApp access, and only allow access to it to those who payed up, after people stopped text-messaging in droves in favor of WhatsApp. This didn't come out of the blue, and I personally feel stopping this sort of thing is a good(tm) thing.
Just finished reading Neelie Kroes' speech an I really like it. Good to see that an influential politician has a long-term vision of how the internet has evolved and into which direction it should go.
You can read the speech here and also leave your comments on specific sections: http://commentneelie.eu/speech.php?sp=SPEECH/13/498
Now I wonder how this will play with website blocking in the UK, Italy, Denmark, ...
Europe, like any other region of this world, is dependent on its member states' economies being successful in maximizing their profits. That, and the fact that the EU in its heart is an economic union, not a civil rights institution, is the reason why there are, by conservative estimation, 15,000 lobbyists working in brussels, making 20 per member of the European Parliament, 550 per member of the European Commission. Which is why the EU, just as any other governmentorial institution in this world, usually creates laws and decisions in favor of the big money, not the people. And which is why a decision in favour of network neutrality, which would interfere with the profit maximization of the biggest European telcos, is improbable even if suggested by a top-rank commissioner. And if it really should become reality, it will be one of the rare exceptions to the rule.
The level of democratic legitimization of the European Commission is, by the way, completely irrelevant in this context. In this so-called civilized world, the only puropose of elections is to hold up the illusion that people could influence politics, while politics will, as a matter of economic necessity, always be dictated by profits, no matter in which cases people are allowed to vote, or, for that matter, whom they do elect.
Indeed and there's more to it than that. Serious policy changes cannot happen without the consent of the Council of Ministers. This is a body made up of government ministers from member states. You don't get to be a government minister without some kind of democratic legitimacy. Of course the exact process by which people get appointed as ministers varies by member state.
Of course policy is also made by the courts. We like to maintain the fiction that courts just apply the law. But there's much more to it than that. This is not exclusively a European issue tho'. Nobody can sensibly say that the decision in Row v Wade, for example, isn't really a policy decision. Every knows this which is why appointment of Supreme Court Justices is so political.
Remembering the times when Deutsche Telekom was still called "Deutsche Bundespost" and a state-owned monopoly, I can only say: NO WAY!!!
Why is it that so many people believe that a monopoly "works better" if it's state-owned instead of privately held? A private monopoly must at least make sure they are not being substituted away by some related technology (and therefore stay *somewhat* attractive), while *every single* government monopoly makes sure, using the law and force, that nobody competes with them, ever.
The best thing that ever happened to the German telecommunications market was to allow competitors in, and push Deutsche Telekom aside (still profitable, paying good dividends on their stock).
Deutsche Telekom is not a "monopoly". They still own the network, but are forced to rent "the last mile" to competitors at regulated prices. Their market share is not that high. Vodafone, O2, KabelDeutschland and others are only some of their competitors.
Back on topic: Deutsche Telekom also does IPTV, and they are being accused of violating network neutrality since they want to exempt it (and phone services) from their planned DSL caps (75GB @DSL, 200GB @VDSL 50MBit). Partly correct, but it's not "internet" because Telekom has built a parallel infrastructure for it (separate VLAN, separate distribution network). Partly, because at the same time they have a sh*tty backbone connection to, for example, YouTube and want to make separate agreements with them to a) "finance better connectivity" and b) have select services exempt from bandwidth caps.
No other provider does this. I went from Deutsche Telekom to O2, and suddenly Youtube in HD started working (it is really unuseable on DTAG's network). Also, if you use a VPN and then start Youtube, everything is fine - even if exactly the same backbone connection is used.
She has an exemplary track record of protecting the consumer, the common man, and hitting at corporate interests that try the opposite.
Because the already existing Dutch example was mentioned we can assume the EU rules would follow a similar path and that's again a sign for a consumer-friendly ruling.
When the ruling is consumer friendly it will be a bonus for all, not just the single company that wants to bent the rules it's own way for profit.
Although Europeans have to remain vigilant about the various restrictions set on public speech, via the Internet or any other means, there is a wide agreement among many Europeans not all needs to be allowed.
Europeans will typically sooner accept a restriction set by a democratically elected legislature than by a commercial entity.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
They're not just directly elected by the people either, they're directed through a form of proportional representation so they're actually more representative of the make up of each nation's vote than most national parliaments are.
Certainly the consistency and spread of EP representatives of the UK are much more representative of popular support than our national government is.
They should enforce truth in advertising: "Warning. We deliberately slow down Skype and YouTube to make their product seem worse compared to ours. Do you want to sign up with us?"
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
What if I'm a customer and I want streaming audio prioritized, for the obvious reason that it's better not to have it burp when some software updater checks for patches?
It would be hard enough for technical people to define "network neutrality", let alone government. Don't get me wrong. I like the concept of network neutrality. Violations are like obscenity though. "you know it when you see it".
I think the best thing the government can do is define "the spirit of the law" and then let judges decide in civil class action suits or something similar. Anything else risks throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
But that's not a problem with the EU. The Comission and the Council of Ministers are bad exactly because it's left to the national governments to pick them.