NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] Re: Submission to NN Squad - EU net discrimination clauseanalysis
I am a strong proponent of non-discriminatory access to the transport capability of the internet independent of any specific application. The key service is the ability for users to reach any and all destinations on the network and to use any application of choice.
Vint
----- Original Message -----
From: nnsquad-bounces+vint=google.com@nnsquad.org <nnsquad-bounces+vint=google.com@nnsquad.org>
To: nnsquad@nnsquad.org <nnsquad@nnsquad.org>
Sent: Fri May 08 06:10:58 2009
Subject: [ NNSquad ] Submission to NN Squad - EU net discrimination clauseanalysis
Lauren,
I would really welcome your readers re-action to this comment on the net
discrimation clause. The Blog is here :
http://broadbandbritain.spaces.live.com/blog/
Amendment 22 - a net discrimation clause
The EU Telecoms package was pushed to conciliation on May 6th. There was
a number of concerns on Internet freedom. The one which MEPs did not
allow to pass was the notion that our internet connection could be cut
off without a proper legal review if it was suspected that we were
downloading pirated material. This is known as graduated response, in
France it is the proposed Hadopi law and more memorably as the Carla
Bruni (a song writer with copyright) amendment. The MEPs stood firm and
forced the package into conciliation.
MEPs were also unhappy but allowed to pass a much amended and fought
over net discrimination clauses - also known as the AT&T amendments and
the wiki amendments, so called as UK advisors were shown to have cut and
pasted material on network management into the amendments. The following
amendment 22 (one of the clauses) has been adopted by Parliament and may
or may not get included in the conciliation process after the Euro
elections on June 4th. The worst effects have been mitigated against by
a general declaration that citizens have a right of access to the
internet, regulators are obliged to deal with any non-discriminatory
network managements practices under competition but this is still a
mess. It still shows the strong traces of the authors (Malcolm Harbour,
MEP) original view that access to the public internet could be regulated
in the same manner a Cable TV service is regulated. He believed the
internet experience should be a function of competitive market forces
only, and operators can limit our access as long as long they put any
such limitations in the small print. Competitive forces alone would keep
the market pure.
As adopted in the Universal Service and Users Rights Directive it
currently states;
(22) /*End-users should be able to decide what content they want to send
and receive, and which services, applications, hardware and software
they want to use for such purposes, without prejudice to the need to
preserve the integrity and security of networks and services. A
competitive market will provide users with a wide choice of content,
applications and services. National regulatory authorities should
promote users' ability to access and distribute information and to run
applications and services of their choice, as stated in Article 8 of
Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive). */Given the increasing
importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses,
users should/* in any case */be fully informed of/* any limiting
conditions imposed on the use of electronic communications services by
*/the service and/or network provider â./* Such information should, at
the option of the provider, specify the type of content, application or
service concerned, individual applications or services, or both.
Depending on the technology used and the type of limitation, such
limitations may require user consent under Directive 2002/58/EC
(Directive on privacy and electronic communications). */
I am not sure this is of use to anyone. As a user it suggests the ISP
gets to determine what I see and do not see on the public Internet. But
elsewhere it states Internet access is a fundamental right, and
non-discriminatory traffic practices could be dealt with under
competition law, which is no protection for a user.
Given the nature of the Internet as Digital commons and our right to
access to it, then any natural limitation will be due to the nature of
the connectivity provided, the up to speed, the throughput, throughput
at peak period, and the measured loss and delay characteristics of the
line. Our limitation is dictated by the physics of the connection, the
constraints due to sharing the backhaul, and the operators hidden
network planning rules.
In the context of accessing the public Internet there should be no
notion of limiting access to content, or applications. Restrictions by
content or application means the customer is not getting access to the
public Internet, or gaining full use of the data connectivity available.
Such services are of course possible, but should not be labeled
Broadband Internet services.
The market does not in this context provide a wide choice of content.
The content and applications are on the public Internet. We are buying
access to the public internet which can be bundled with applications
like email and anti-virus software. The market should provide
competitive data transport services, which will differ from supplier to
supplier.
This would suggest 22 should be amended to read ,
*End-users have a right to decide what content to send and receive, and
which services, applications, hardware and software they want to use for
such purposes, without prejudice to the need to preserve the integrity
and security of networks and services. A competitive market will provide
a choice of access to the Internet. National regulatory authorities
should promote users' ability to access and distribute information and
to run applications and services of their choice, as stated in Article 8
of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive). Given the increasing
importance of electronic communications , and especially access to the
public Internet; users should be fully informed of any limits caused by,
1) the physics of the network (headline speed), 2) the operators network
planning rules (quality measures, and peak period allowances and 3) the
non-discriminatory congestion management rules needed to manage busy
periods. Such information should be transparent to the user prior to the
point of purchase and in the terms and conditions . Given networks are
both contended and congested at peak periods operators should offer
their customers the ability to prioritise time sensitive applications so
a consistent user experience is maintained for their important
applications during busy periods.*
The objective is get operators to expose the full potential of the
available connectivity, so consumers can see what resources (and it's
limits) are available to them, thus optimising the opportunity to do
more with the available connectivity.
One of the reasons amendment 22 was adopted is perhaps they had nothing
better to replace it with.
If you can improve the above, please do so and share it.
Kind regards
Mike Kiely