[ NNSquad ] other measures in the EU Universal Service Directive [ Lessons to learn! -L ]

[Mike Kiely <Mike.kiely@pnsol.com>]

Lauren,

Amendment 138 now re-numbered 46 was passed by the ITRE committee 
yesterday,  protecting EU citizens against the 'graduated' response 
against filesharers.  I am not sure how many more times and committees 
it needs to pass,  but common sense is prevailing for now.  More common 
sense is needed in the coming days.

There are a group of other nasty amendments within the EU Universal 
Service Directive.  The so called AT&T amendments, and UK 'wiki' 
amendments are still evident and will permit transparent net (data 
transport) discrimination.  It starts with the premise that a 
competitive market will define what an affordable internet service is,  
so no minimum service definition is provided...but the market should 
define... terminology.  There is no differentiation between management 
of the busy period (congestion management) from other network management 
practices,  only that the user should be informed of any limitations,  I 
assume in the help pages.  Because it is a competitive market the 
customer will have choice and can switch providers if unhappy with the 
limitations!  If there is anti-competitive bechavior then this can be 
investigated by the local regulator or action can be taken under 
competition law,  which means it is not open to the citizens to 
challenge these practices.

Despite the pronouncement of Viviane Reding,  the EU Commissioner,  and 
indeed the European Parliament for an open and neutral net,  this is not 
how the amendments are written.  Amendment 5 - 
http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_5_-  
provides a good example of the how an internet connection could become 
like a mobile data service or a Cable TV service. 

How did this happen?  Apart from the lobbying,  the problem arose 
because this legislation is written as an extension of the USD for the 
telephone service.  The phone service does critical things like 
emergency service access,  controlled use of numbers.  Our internet 
access is protrayed as an add on service -not critical.  Like the phone 
service it must be affordable so the directive states.  A combination of 
non-critical and need for 'affordable' gave the encumbents the room to 
push back on openness and neutrality,  and hence the badly worded 
amendments,  which will inhibit our use of our high speed connectivity.

We will be nagging our MEPs on the need to reject the transparent net 
discrimination amendments,  but there is little or no scutiny of the 
legislative process.

There are good lessons on what to avoid here for anyone proposing to 
write the US Broadband Plan.

Regards

Mike Kiely

http://www.bbbritain.co.uk