Slashdot Mirror
Dutch Net Neutrality Law Goes Too Far Say Critics (telegeography.com)
An anonymous reader writes: The Dutch Senate has passed the revised Net Neutrality Law as part of an amendment to the country's Telecommunications Act. The strict new law seeks to ensure that telcos and ISPs treat all internet traffic equally and cannot favor one internet app or service over another. Opponents, however, say the legislation, which was approved by the lower house of parliament in May this year, is overly severe and is out of line with the EU's own open internet standards. Afke Schaart, Vice President Europe at mobile industry body the GSMA, commented: 'We are greatly disappointed with the outcome of today's vote. We believe that the Dutch Net Neutrality Law goes far beyond the intent of the EU regulation. We therefore call on the European Commission to ensure the harmonised implementation of Europe's Open Internet rules.' The GSMA says the tighter laws in the Netherlands will 'hinder development of innovative services and consumer choice'.
Anytime I read that quote, I imagine its because they don't have any real objection other than "this will cost us money." If they said "this will prevent 5G rollout because X" I would think they had a reason.
Your ad here. Ask me how!
A group representing psychopaths issued a statement saying that the laws against murder had 'gone too far". They particularly complained that legislators focused primarily on the public interest, and failed to balance those concerns against the needs of killers.
The key sequence to access my Slashdot bookmark in Firefox is Alt-B-S. I don't believe this is a coincidence.
Either you shape traffic based on type or not, how can you be tooooo neutral to the type of traffic. Packets are packets. You can't shape delivery and resell the artificial disadvantage you just created as a service. That's double dipping.
As to trying a reacharound via the EU Commission, yeh we get it, the unelected problem gets more influence from lobbyists than electorates.... if you have a valid argument why can't you argue against it in Holland?
Manuel Barrosso just joined Goldman Sachs, he undermined EU's privacy, commercial interests and finance. An Elop for the EU, and the mechanism by which these men get to the top isn't anything approaching a democracy.
Objective rules means no opportunity of injection of subjectivity by the regulatory bodies.
No subjectivity means no opportunity for "rent seeking".
No rent seeking means no additional power or profit for politicians.
Therefore, simply "treat all traffic equally" is a definition of Net Neutrality that won't be tolerated.
~ Whence do you come, slayer of men, or where are you going, conqueror of space?
So next thing everyone shapes their packets to look like VoIP. Back to square one.
How that yahoo uses HIS paid for bandwidth is up to him. He paid for it.This idea that you play customers off against each other, and or resell that tradeoff for profit is the issue here, it's why Net Neutrality laws are needed.
So when every yahoo on your segment fires up BitTorrent your VoIP stops working?
So what? They just have to fatten the pipe. Bandwidth is bandwidth. Content is nobody's business.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Basic prioritization is get more bandwidth. NN laws need to be coupled with a requirement to grow the network to support peek demand, preferably with forecasting. QOS is great for constrained systems. Bandwidth is cheap at this point stop acting like it's a massive expense. There are also plenty of programs to make it cheaper netflix coloing cache servers at head ends for example. But for it to be truly neutral their internet connections and most importantly transit links must not be saturated.
No sir I dont like it.
You don't seem to realize this: you are a customer. If ISPs are allowed to traffic-shape, they will traffic shape according to THEIR list, not yours.
And you can bet they will prioritize packets according to THEIR friends. So, if they want you to use THEIR voip service, even though it may be so crappy it makes you puke, THEIR service will get priority over everything else. And your VOIP of choice, whatever it is, will be so crappy it will make you go nuts.
This is not about prioritization: it's about who gets the best service. If ISPs are allowed to choose, again, they will choose THEIR "friends", "partners" or "subsidiaries" over your choice.
What's more, if on your ISP VOIP gets crappy because everyone else is busy torrenting, it simply means your ISP is crappy and is not using its money to invest in infrastucture, which ISP the world over have been guilty of, at one point or another.
Educate yourself: https://savetheinternet.eu/en/
The right to offend is far more important than the right not to be offended. (Rowan Atkinson)
Or maybe I should vote with my feet and drop them all, set up some sort of packet radio link or use smoke signals.
Better yet, I will build my own network, it will be perfect, with cocaine and hookers, except the cost barriers and local regulation barriers are so high as to be impassable.
Tell me kind sir, how the fuck am I supposed to vote with my feet?
Silence is a state of mime.
How about the government keeps its dirty hands out of private infrastructure and lets customers vote with their feet?
Because that private infrastructure requires government participation. That's what happens when you have a shared resource that needs to be protected -- in this case, private property and public roads. You don't let any little company or startup dig up the streets on their whim to lay cables.
What SHOULD be the case is that ISPs don't own the lines at all, that the lines are publicly managed and the ISPs can all use them. Then ISPs would have to compete on price and features, and consumers would actually be able to get the sort of consumer choice that would let them make the best decision for themselves. We don't live in that world, though, we live in a world where monopolies or duopolies are granted because of the shared land use considerations, and consumers usually have the choice between a steaming turd and a shit sandwich.
...T-Mobile NL complains about having a music streming service (such sa Spotify, Deezer, Soundlcoud, Apple Music, whatever) that does not count towards the data cap ...this is a good example on why this might seem as "going too far" in their scope: it is affecting their marketing.
Exactly. The practice that T-Mobile wants to implement would be anti-competitive vendor lock-in. If my service provider says its own music service doesn't count against my data cap, but other services do, then that's blatantly against Net Neutrality. Either there is neutrality, or there isn't - just as there is either discrimination, or no discrimination. There is no middle ground on this issue. If T-Mobile wants to launch a music service, let it compete on equal terms with ALL music services on ALL providers' networks. The Dutch have it right, and the rest of the EU should be following their lead, not vice versa.
'The Economy' is a giant Ponzi scheme whose most pitiable suckers are the youngest among us and the yet-unborn.