Leaked Documents Show EU Council Presidency Wants To Impair Net Neutrality

NotInHere writes: The advocacy group "European Digital Rights" (EDRi) reports on leaked documents proposed by the Presidency of the council of the EU (currently held by Italy), which plans to remove vital parts from the telecommunications package that introduced net neutrality. The changes include removing the definition of "net neutrality" and replacing it with a "reference to the objective of net neutrality," which EDRi says will impair any ability to enforce it.

Also, the proposed changes would allow ISPs to "block, slow down, alter, degrade or discriminate" traffic in order to meet "obligations under a contract with an end-user to deliver a service requiring a specific level of quality to that end-user." EDRi writes that "[w]ith all of the talk of the need for a single digital market in Europe, we would have new barriers and new monopolies."

The council of the EU is one of its two legislative chambers. The EU parliament can now object or propose further changes to prevent the modified telecommunications package from passing.

Comments

Subterranean BS.

[Chas]

Yet another asshole politician hellbent on fucking over people (in general) and probably enriching himself in the process.

Re:Subterranean BS.

[Eunuchswear]

Didn't I vote for that guy?! Oh wait .. It's not allowed to vote for people so high up the ladder in the EU.

What a bizzare thing to say just after the first election ever where EU citizens got to influence the choice of President of the EU comission.

For you Americans out there here is what happened: All the (sane) parties proposing candidates for the EU parliament announced who their respective candidates for EU comission president would be and pledged to vote for the candidate of the party that got the biggest number of seats. The EPP got the most seats, so their candidate, Jean-Claude Junker was elected presdent of the Comission. (Ok, it's a silly way of doing it, but the member states would never accept a direct election. It's also not so different from the way a UK PM or US president gets elected).

(People in the UK got screwed by the "sane" bit above - for reasons of their own the UK tories left the EPP and the rag-tag of swivel-eyed loons they joined didn't bother to present a candidate, Labour and the Liberals took fright and refused to support their own party candidates for no obvious reason).

You can only vote for the EU parliament which has no power.

Except the power to elect the head of the EU commission, the power to throw out the EU comission in its entirety and the power to reject or demand modifications to any EU law proposed for the comission.

Re:what a shame

[i kan reed]

Not to miss your obvious sarcasm, but it's a bit like saying "get your own road".

Infrastructure is complicated, because you aren't going to be able to make your own road going from A to B without crossing property owned by the existing A to B magnate, unless you're willing to put up with some really inefficient routes. And you've almost doubled the real cost of roadways(i.e. how much initial and annual cost the roads require).

Contrary to the neo-liberal perspective, some problems just can't be hammered out by competition.

Modern politics

[Dunbal]

"Jockey of Norfolk, be not so bold. For Dickon thy master is bought and sold." -- Shakespeare. Seriously, are there any politicians left who are NOT corrupt?

In Order To Meet Contract Obligations

[Jason Levine]

in order to meet "obligations under a contract"

Coming soon from ISPs: Legalese buried deep in your contract with them that essentially states "We [the ISP] have the contractual obligation to muck with any website as we see fit whenever we want to do so."

They're contractually obligated to slow down your Netflix speeds because they really wanted to and the contract means they are now obligated to slow down Netflix.

Re:Manipulative language

[dywolf]

Why should we care about the owners of the network?
The internet is fundamentally a natural monopoly.
As such it should absolutely be treated as such which means utilty type regulations.
The owners aren't the ones you should be concerned, rather it's the users and consumers.

It's really simple: If you are against Net Neutrality, you are against the internet that you currently enjoy in its present state.
Net Neutrality is about preserving and protecting the current ideal status quo that companies at least pay lip service to.

Blocking Net Neutrality is about fundamentally changing the internet as you know it, to turn it into nothing more than walled garden ala AOL and Compuserve of old, where your "internet" is little more than a slightly fancier cable channel with predetermined content. Such a thing fundamentally kills and and restricts the marketplace and exchange of ideas, of thoughts, of communication, of trade and economic possiblity that current exists, and ensures that all potential profits will go to the established ISPs, and no unapproved upstarts shall be allowed to exist.

The internet is possibly one of the greatest achievements in human history in terms of communication. It fosters communication and free speech on a scale never before known by humanity. Across borders, across cultures, across the globe, and (hopeuflly, potentially) across the stars. That openness, that freedom, must be protected.

And protecting means Net Neutrality.
If you oppose NN you advocating for the destruction of one of humanity's greatest triumphs, and one of the biggest liberators of the little guy.