[bestbits] Our position on NN Rules published : Net Neutrality: Europe Slips Into Reverse

Tue Jun 30 17:41:44 EDT 2015

Great post, Renata!

Here's Access' press release on it: http://bit.ly/1Jv5Cez

Our basic analysis:

The current text both protects and undermines Net Neutrality. On the
positive side, all provisions on parental control and filters have been
removed from the text. Provisions to protect access to the internet are in
but the text also allows for the establishment of slow lanes and fast
lanes. This ambiguity creates legal uncertainty that would require a court
or regulatory authorities to decide whether Net Neutrality or the
establishment of fast lanes prevails.

It's still possible to fix several issues and to ensure a minimum level of
protection for Net Neutrality in Europe - and there'll be lots of work to
do this summer. We're putting together our thoughts on how a broad
coalition of groups inside and outside the EU can engage internet users in
this fight, which will culminate this fall, when the European Parliament
formally votes on the text.

It would be great to work with folks to build a plan - let me know if you'd
like to connect.

Best,
Josh

On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 4:13 PM, Renata Avila <
renata.avila at webfoundation.org> wrote:

> Here our position:
> http://webfoundation.org/2015/06/net-neutrality-europe-slips-into-reverse/
> Net Neutrality: Europe Slips Into ReverseWeb Foundation
> <http://webfoundation.org/author/> · June 30, 2015
>
>    - Web We Want <http://webfoundation.org/our-work/projects/web-we-want/>
>
> Following a mammoth negotiating session that ended in the early hours of
> this morning, the European Union (EU) has released their long awaited rules
> on Net Neutrality.
>
> The EU Commissioner
> <https://twitter.com/DigitalAgendaEU/status/615892188149489665>’s tweet
> and an accompanying press release
> <http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-15-5265_en.htm>proclaimed the
> rules as strong protection for net neutrality, but we’re not so sure. In
> fact, our initial response is one of disappointment. As others
> <https://edri.org/blurry-ambiguous-net-neutrality-deal-is-an-abdication-of-responsibility/> have
> pointed out, the proposals are unclear. At best they will lead to disputes
> and confusion, and at worst they could see the creation of a two-tier
> internet. If enacted, these rules would place European companies and
> citizens at a disadvantage when compared to countries such as Chile and the
> USA.
>
> The good news is, there is still time for decisive action. In the coming
> days, the EU will debate and release clarifications on important areas.
> Then, the full European parliament has to ratify the text later this year.
>
> If you’re worried about the future of the Internet in Europe, send a
> tweet to tell European lawmakers to stand up for true net neutrality!
> <http://twitter.com/home?status=A%20real%20%23DigitalAgenda%20would%20stand%20up%20for%20true%20%23netneutrality%20%40EU_Commission%20%40europarl%20%40EUCouncil%20%23SaveTheInternet!>
>
> We’re still digesting the details of the deal, but here are two points of
> immediate concern to us:
>
> *1. “Specialised services” mean we could see the creation of internet fast
> lanes. *The EU’s proposed deal allows so-called “specialised services” –
> as long as they don’t interfere with the “open Internet”. On the face of
> it, this sounds reasonable. The EU gives the example of telesurgery – and
> we can all agree that doctors should be able to work using the internet
> with a higher level of service in life-critical situations.
>
> Unfortunately, though, opening the door to “specialised services” creates
> a large grey area which is open to abuse. For instance, the EU has
> suggested that Internet TV be classified as a specialised service. So where
> do, say, educational videos on YouTube fit in? When does a service become
> specialised? Also – we can’t imagine now what the future will bring. What
> if the email, search or web of tomorrow is classified as a “specialised
> service” that we have to pay more to access? Opening up this can of worms
> is sure to lead to legal disputes and ongoing uncertainty for everyone.
>
> Ultimately, the only way to stop this is to be bold and pass strong net
> neutrality laws that preserve the Internet as it should be – an open
> platform for innovation. If the EU is determined to press ahead with
> exceptions for “specialised services”, such services should be tightly
> defined after broad public consultation, and take place in very limited
> exceptional circumstances, rather than becoming commonplace.
>
> *2. “Zero rated” services are to be allowed – with unclear safeguards. *Zero-rating
> plans typically involve internet companies and telecoms operators teaming
> up and offering a particular service or bundle of services for free. The EU
> has decided to allow the practice of zero rating, because “zero rating does
> not block competing content”. That’s true, but misses the point that any
> rational person will choose to get something for free, rather than pay for
> something else presented as a close alternative. But in this case, the free
> service could well be just a tiny slice of the open internet, with content
> closely controlled by commercial interests, where the highest bidder can
> pay to have individuals see their content for free. Or, it could be
> something like a particular internet telephony or music streaming service.
>
> As our founder and Web inventor Tim Berners-Lee said when he wrote on
> this topic
> <https://ec.europa.eu/commission/2014-2019/ansip/blog/guest-blog-sir-tim-berners-lee-founding-director-world-wide-web-foundation_en> in
> February: *“Of course, it is not just about blocking and throttling. It
> is also about stopping ‘positive discrimination’, such as when one internet
> operator favours one particular service over another. If we don’t
> explicitly outlaw this, we hand immense power to telcos and online service
> operators. In effect, they can become gatekeepers – able to handpick
> winners and the losers in the market and to favour their own sites,
> services and platforms over those of others. This would crowd out
> competition and snuff out innovative new services before they even see the
> light of day. Imagine if a new start-up or service provider had to ask
> permission from or pay a fee to a competitor before they could attract
> customers? This sounds a lot like bribery or market abuse…”*
>
> Simply allowing zero rating on a blanket basis, with no clear guidelines
> as to what it can be used for, and how it will be regulated, seems like a
> retrograde step to us. The EU should ban zero rating unless ‘free data’ can
> be used to access any part of the Open Internet.
>
> *We’ll be following this topic closely in the weeks ahead. If you agree
> with our concerns, send a tweet today!
> <http://twitter.com/home?status=A%20real%20%23DigitalAgenda%20would%20stand%20up%20for%20true%20%23netneutrality%20%40EU_Commission%20%40europarl%20%40EUCouncil%20%23SaveTheInternet!>*
>
>
>
> ____________________________________________________________
> You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>      bestbits at lists.bestbits.net.
> To unsubscribe or change your settings, visit:
>      http://lists.bestbits.net/wws/info/bestbits
>

-- 
*Josh Levy*
Advocacy Director
Access | accessnow.org

tel: + 1 917 609 6523 | @levjoy
PGP: 0x84C9F275
Fingerprint: B56A D510 3142 2364 69C7 3961 A0A3 67A5 84C9 F275

*Join the Access team - *we're hiring <https://www.accessnow.org/about/jobs>!
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.igcaucus.org/pipermail/bestbits/attachments/20150630/6f906b69/attachment.htm>