EU parliament adopts net neutrality law

[Siege]

The European Parliament has voted to restrict internet service providers' (ISPs) ability to charge data-hungry services for faster network access.

Operators have said the move would hinder their efforts to manage traffic.

The "net neutrality" proposal would put the EU at odds with the US, where video streaming service Netflix is paying the country's biggest cable firm for preferential treatment on its network.

The law still needs to be approved by Europe's Council of Ministers.

It would also prohibit mobile networks and broadband providers from blocking services - such as WhatApp messages or Google Drive storage - that compete with their own offerings.

Continue reading the main story
Child abuse row

Concerns have been raised that the net neutrality amendment passed in parliament could be exploited to allow child abuse images to be shared.

A section that originally stated that sites could be blocked if it was necessary to "implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes" was shortened in the final version to refer only to court orders.

At present a UK-based organisation called the Internet Watch Foundation maintains a list of web pages containing images of child abuse so that ISPs can block the content - a process that does not involve court orders.

As farfetched as it might seem that the EU would make it easier to share such material, some politicians do fear that the amendment in its current state could make this the case.

The Conservative Party's Vicky Ford MEP warned that the current draft was "dangerous" and said that it would have to be revised.

Labour's Richard Howitt MEP tweeted that he too opposed the proposed law, which he said "could weaken [the] fight against online child sex abuse images".

At present Slovenia and the Netherlands are the only members of the 28-nation bloc to enshrine the principle in law.

Here is a more detailed article on the law and the amendments the parliament added to Commissioner Kroes' initial proposal. Ignoring for a moment the usual hand-wringing of British MEPs this looks like a very promising piece of legislation to me. No throttling of Netflix bandwith or other arbitrary "specialized services" nonsense, and no more insane roaming fees either. Here's to hoping the Council of Ministers adopts it posthaste.

[TheHammer]

The European Parliament has voted to restrict internet service providers' (ISPs) ability to charge data-hungry services for faster network access.

Operators have said the move would hinder their efforts to manage traffic.

The "net neutrality" proposal would put the EU at odds with the US, where video streaming service Netflix is paying the country's biggest cable firm for preferential treatment on its network.

The law still needs to be approved by Europe's Council of Ministers.

It would also prohibit mobile networks and broadband providers from blocking services - such as WhatApp messages or Google Drive storage - that compete with their own offerings.

Continue reading the main story
Child abuse row

Concerns have been raised that the net neutrality amendment passed in parliament could be exploited to allow child abuse images to be shared.

A section that originally stated that sites could be blocked if it was necessary to "implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes" was shortened in the final version to refer only to court orders.

At present a UK-based organisation called the Internet Watch Foundation maintains a list of web pages containing images of child abuse so that ISPs can block the content - a process that does not involve court orders.

As farfetched as it might seem that the EU would make it easier to share such material, some politicians do fear that the amendment in its current state could make this the case.

The Conservative Party's Vicky Ford MEP warned that the current draft was "dangerous" and said that it would have to be revised.

Labour's Richard Howitt MEP tweeted that he too opposed the proposed law, which he said "could weaken [the] fight against online child sex abuse images".

At present Slovenia and the Netherlands are the only members of the 28-nation bloc to enshrine the principle in law.

Here is a more detailed article on the law and the amendments the parliament added to Commissioner Kroes' initial proposal. Ignoring for a moment the usual hand-wringing of British MEPs this looks like a very promising piece of legislation to me. No throttling of Netflix bandwith or other arbitrary "specialized services" nonsense, and no more insane roaming fees either. Here's to hoping the Council of Ministers adopts it posthaste.

This law could easily be amended such that it excludes illegal content, such as the a fore mentioned child abuse sites, from Net Neutrality protection. That should remove the big "think of the children!" complaint.

[LaCroix]

Why would they need to amend it? If it's illegal contant, once they find it, they would need to confirm it's illegal. Which means they need a court order. Which they need right now, as well, to legally block it. It would only create duality to amend Net Neutrality.

[Vendetta]

They wouldn't, especially since EU directives like this aren't laws but frameworks for laws that each member nation gets to write its own way, but UK politicians can happily use "think of the kiddies" to justify any bullshit.

[Edi]

The industry opposition is complete bullshit in an attempt to protect customer lock-in to shitty services. It's extremely easy to recognize, given that I work in that same industry. I applaud this law.

[Siege]

The principle that all Internet content should be treated equally as it flows through cables and pipes to consumers looks all but dead.

The Federal Communications Commission said on Wednesday that it would propose new rules that allow companies like Disney, Google or Netflix to pay Internet service providers like Comcast and Verizon for special, faster lanes to send video and other content to their customers.

The proposed changes would affect what is known as net neutrality — the idea that no providers of legal Internet content should face discrimination in providing offerings to consumers, and that users should have equal access to see any legal content they choose.

The proposal comes three months after a federal appeals court struck down, for the second time, agency rules intended to guarantee a free and open Internet.

Tom Wheeler, the F.C.C. chairman, defended the agency’s plans late Wednesday, saying speculation that the F.C.C. was “gutting the open Internet rule” is “flat out wrong.” Rather, he said, the new rules will provide for net neutrality along the lines of the appeals court’s decision.

Still, the regulations could radically reshape how Internet content is delivered to consumers. For example, if a gaming company cannot afford the fast track to players, customers could lose interest and its product could fail.

The rules are also likely to eventually raise prices as the likes of Disney and Netflix pass on to customers whatever they pay for the speedier lanes, which are the digital equivalent of an uncongested car pool lane on a busy freeway.

Consumer groups immediately attacked the proposal, saying that not only would costs rise, but also that big, rich companies with the money to pay large fees to Internet service providers would be favored over small start-ups with innovative business models — stifling the birth of the next Facebook or Twitter.

Full article at the link. Enjoy that Comcast-Warner monopoly, guys...

[Purple]

Full article at the link. Enjoy that Comcast-Warner monopoly, guys...

What does that mean for us in Europe given that the two governments seem to be operating divergently.

[Siege]

Nothing directly. The FCC has no jurisdiction in the EU. When the Times says that "the principle that all Internet content should be treated equally looks all but dead" it really should have added "... in the USA" after that. Far as I can tell it means that ISPs in the USA get to squeeze clients who want Netflix to work properly whereas in the EU they aren't allowed to do that.

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

Full article at the link. Enjoy that Comcast-Warner monopoly, guys...

What does that mean for us in Europe given that the two governments seem to be operating divergently.

Nothing really, unless you regularly access websites hosted in the United States ... in which case, it'll be slower to access them, since American ISPs will have devoted their available bandwidth to servicing customers willing to "pay to play", since now there's no incentive whatsoever for them to upgrade their infrastructure (I mean, why work to make the internet faster and more reliable for everyone, when you can simply demand that people pay extra to get their traffic from the least-leaky pipes?)

[Purple]

Full article at the link. Enjoy that Comcast-Warner monopoly, guys...

What does that mean for us in Europe given that the two governments seem to be operating divergently.

Nothing really, unless you regularly access websites hosted in the United States ... in which case, it'll be slower to access them, since American ISPs will have devoted their available bandwidth to servicing customers willing to "pay to play", since now there's no incentive whatsoever for them to upgrade their infrastructure (I mean, why work to make the internet faster and more reliable for everyone, when you can simply demand that people pay extra to get their traffic from the least-leaky pipes?)

Won't that lead to massive migrations in terms of hosting to Europe and generally outside of america?

[Irbis]

Won't that lead to massive migrations in terms of hosting to Europe and generally outside of america?

You mean, from area where laws can be summed 'everything goes' to places with actual privacy laws?



No, all it means we will probably see initiative by Google/Microsoft/Netflix/Amazon etc to build their own ISP, at least in big cities. Rural and international clients? Who cares, they can go fuck themselves since they don't bring in profits anyway.

[Purple]

You mean, from area where laws can be summed 'everything goes' to places with actual privacy laws?

Well it sounds like a smart business move to migrate your website from one host to another so that you don't have to pay extra to make sure people can see it. Especially since in this case it's literally as simple as signing a contract with someone else. There are plenty of websites which rely on adds for money and would probably hate to see their user base drop.

[Irbis]

Well it sounds like a smart business move to migrate your website from one host to another so that you don't have to pay extra to make sure people can see it. Especially since in this case it's literally as simple as signing a contract with someone else. There are plenty of websites which rely on adds for money and would probably hate to see their user base drop.

The problem is - USA net laws let US companies fuck everyone in the rear. Well, maybe except some US customers, but educated people looking after their rights are a minority. Besides, RIAA and MPAA proved they have little influence and can be smeared as anti-American thieves. They won't let that go for minor user inconvenience, especially seeing they would need to learn whole new law and tax system after move.

As for hosting, huge server centres like Microsoft, Amazon, Google have are hundreds of millions of dollars investments and at this point creating their own ISP (Google even started trials of just that last year) would be cheaper. You can't easily move these, server centers have pretty big requirements.

[Purple]

Well it sounds like a smart business move to migrate your website from one host to another so that you don't have to pay extra to make sure people can see it. Especially since in this case it's literally as simple as signing a contract with someone else. There are plenty of websites which rely on adds for money and would probably hate to see their user base drop.

The problem is - USA net laws let US companies fuck everyone in the rear. Well, maybe except some US customers, but educated people looking after their rights are a minority. Besides, RIAA and MPAA proved they have little influence and can be smeared as anti-American thieves. They won't let that go for minor user inconvenience, especially seeing they would need to learn whole new law and tax system after move.

As for hosting, huge server centres like Microsoft, Amazon, Google have are hundreds of millions of dollars investments and at this point creating their own ISP (Google even started trials of just that last year) would be cheaper. You can't easily move these, server centers have pretty big requirements.

I am not talking about huge conglomerates like MS or google. I am talking about small and medium sized websites which exist only as websites and profit only based on adds and maybe what ever it is they peddle.

[Irbis]

I am not talking about huge conglomerates like MS or google. I am talking about small and medium sized websites which exist only as websites and profit only based on adds and maybe what ever it is they peddle.

These would likely to be too small to be affected much by ISP throttling, too small to afford moving, and have too small business to likely care. Look at examples, it's video streaming and running of net applications, you need big resources to even start considering running such service.

Plus, if you think about it, ISPs are 'last mile' connections. It doesn't matter where your server is, if line connecting to your home is throttled, everything is. That's why I said companies affecting building something like this is about the only possible solution.