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.
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
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
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.
the only puropose of elections is to hold up the illusion that people could influence politics
That's a nasty demon driving you.
As an European I don't agree with you at all, the breadth and width of the political spectrum is so great you can't possibly claim all is stitched up.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
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."