Slashdot Mirror
EU May Not Unify Its Data Protection Rules After All
jfruh writes: One of the EU's selling points is that it provides a single regulatory apparatus for the entire European market — but this isn't the case for everything. Data protection laws, for instance, provide a confusing thicket of different regulations across the continent, and now, much to the frustration of large American Internet companies, it seems that a plan to consolidate these rules under a single EU agency are coming apart.
In other EU news, reader Presto Vivace points out that German Chancellor Angel Merkel has spoken out against net neutrality. She said, "An innovation-friendly internet means that there is a guaranteed reliability for special services. These can only develop when predictable quality standards are available."
IP packets had a TOS field from in the beginning. IP v6 has this again. I am fine and appreciate prioritization/TOS if:
* ISP explicitly list these classes of traffic in their Terms
* Everybody (no matter if google or a 1 person specialized SW shop) can buy priority traffic on the backbone with a specific latency/reliability class
* Traffic/Capacity is traded only trough a open market (tick exchange), with no "secret deals"
* Costs for traffic appear separately on the bills of the customers - even if the overall product is free.
* The "last Mile" is a deal between the Customer and *his* ISP. Cross financing the last mile from other businesses should be considered as abuse of a vertical monopoly.
Yeah, give them an inch. See where that ends.
The EU is very much a group of independent countries that have agreed to work together on many issues but have not been willing to give up sovereignty to the point where an EU law has supremacy over local laws. A a result, EU rules tend to be a lowest common denominator with individual countries adding on their own requirements. That's not unexpected since the EU is not a country like say the US where there is a federal system that has sway over the individual states, district and territories that make up the US; where there is agreement the EU works well and but individual countries still have the real power in the union and there still is a very distinct nationalism at play in the political and economic dynamics. That's not necessarily better or worse than other models but just a reflection of how the EU came into being.
I'm a consultant - I convert gibberish into cash-flow.
The German government was in favor of net neutrality. If Merkel's reelection might be in jeopardy due to her position on net neutrality she will change her position. So this is not the end of it.
Furthermore, if a fragmented EU market hinders US monopolies to extend their services to the EU then this is not necessarily a problem for the citizens here in the EU.
Everyone who doesn't have a personal stake in the game is naturally inclined to act recklessly. See the decade-ly cycles of recession and depression economies slip into when markets (housing, finance, oil, whatever) forget that someone else's money is still of value and not to be treated with total abandon.
The decisionmakers at ISPs don't have a piece of skin in this fight because they have special classes of access just as a benefit of being where they are within their companies, and they stand to make more personally from making profit-minded decisions. For these reasons, there's very little personal incentive to uphold the moral high ground because the decisions don't have an immediate negative impact on them. They might feel it once they retire and/or if they go to a different industry, but that's after they've made their profit, and it's long after their short-term decisionmaking window.
It's just human nature. We haven't had this trait bred out, and it's doubtful we as a species ever will. The only way to counter short-sighted thinking is by shortening the mental leap between short-sighted decisions and long-term consequences, which is what everyone fighting for net neutrality is trying to demonstrate right now by citing live examples of where a lack of enforcement has already gone wrong (T-Mobile Unlimited Music, Netflix v. Comcast/VZ, etc.)
Viable Slashdot alternatives: https://pipedot.org/ and http://soylentnews.org/
Let's not forget this statement of Momma Merkel comes from the same woman who stated that the "Internet is virgin territory" merely a year ago.
She simply does not understand internet issues and thus promptly falls back on an industry-friendly position.
It is fine if i have to pay for more bandwidth/allocated bandwidth.
As long as everybody has to pay the same price for this. Because then I (as a customer or provider) can compete in a special area with google.
If only companies who can affort their own ATM networks and are powerful enough to push anybody else to give preference to their traffic, then nobody can compete.
Which is why i think a mandatory split of companies into branches and trading of bandwidth of all kinds (guaranteed, allocated, and opportunistic) on a stock marekt would be appropriate.
And actually: yes, there is traffic, which I as a consumer need with higher priority than other traffic. I just would appreciate if I have the choice.
Did you actually verb "policy"?!
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Sorry. When they stuff enough IT governance shit into your brain you start to talk funny.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.