[Chapter-delegates] EU Net Neutrality – digital rights organisations analysis

[Halbersztadt Jozef (jothal)]

Dear All

Political agreement on Connected Continent package as adopted by the
Coreper (Member States representatives) on 8 July 2015 and endorsed by
ITRE (industry committee of European Parliament) on 16 July 2015

http://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10409-2015-REV-1/en/pdf

Analysis and background of trialogue compromise on Net Neutrality by
EDRi (EU), Access (Global), BoF (NL), IT-Polit (DK), LQdN (FR).

https://edri.org/files/NN_analysis_20150715.pdf

NEED FOR IMPROVEMENT (abstract)

1. Private law enforcement and other censorship (art.2.2, art.3.3.a, rec.4)

The provisions on illegal content are deliberately written in an
unclear way in order to try to permit breaches of the Charter of
Fundamental Rights and are contradictory. The recital is also
exceptionally badly drafted. The removal of proposals on “parental
controls” is a clear improvement compared with the Council text agreed
in March.

2. Congestion (rec.9a)

Thanks to the provisions of the recital on the “temporary” or
“exceptional” nature of the implementation of this exception, the
compromise text is probably workable, although the provision on
“impending” congestion is unnecessary and adds a degree of doubt.

3. “Traffic management” without congestion (rec.8, art.3.3)

These provisions have to be amended to limit “traffic management” to
times of congestion and give priority to application agnostic
resolution strategies, which are the strategies that the internet has
successfully used until now.

4. Price discrimination (zero-rating)

If zero-rating is considered by courts as being allowed by the
Regulation, then national bans on zero rating (such as in the
Netherlands) would not be permitted. The easiest way to resolve this
problem is for the Parliament at least to add an amendment to confirm
that zero rating is not regulated in the legislation. At best, the
Parliament should add an amendment definitively banning a price
discrimination, a practice that is an affront to competition and
freedom of communication.

5. “Specialised services”

The text would be good enough for a good regulator to implement
efficiently, without fear of being successfully sued. However, it is
weak enough for politically and economically weak national regulators
to be able to easily avoid implementing it correctly. But because the
Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC)
Guidelines will severely limit the interpretation and application
scope of these provisions the outcome can not be foreseen.

Best Regards
Jozef Halbersztadt

-- 
jozef [dot] halbersztadt [at] gmail [dot] com
Internet Society Poland http://www.isoc.org.pl
pubkey&address: http://pgp.mit.edu/pks/lookup?search=0x6A332CA03C4ACB9A