Overview of Net Neutrality Regulations

From La Quadrature du Net
(Redirected from Model Law on Net Neutrality)
Jump to navigationJump to search

Existing and proposed Net neutrality regulation across the globe.

Requirements[edit]

What are the different items that should be included in a model law on Net neutrality?

It is currently being discussed on this pad.

Existing laws[edit]

If available, please provide English translation of the law, soft-law, or other rules regulating Net neutrality (actual text rather than just a synopsis) and link to source(s) (synopsis might be useful to sum-up a longer document, like the Ducth memorandum).

Netherlands[edit]

Article 7.4a, Telecommunications Act Source: Bits of Freedom, 15 June 2011, unofficial translation

1. Providers of public electronic communication networks which deliver internet access services and providers of internet access services do not hinder or slow down applications and services on the internet, unless and to the extent that the measure in question with which applications or services are being hindered or slowed down is necessary:

a) to minimize the effects of congestion, whereby equal types of traffic should be treated equally; b) to preserve the integrity and security of the network and service of the provider in question or the terminal of the end-user; c) to restrict the transmission to an end-user of unsolicited communication as referred to in Article 11.7, first paragraph, provided that the end-user has given its prior consent; d) to give effect to a legislative provision or court order.

2. If an infraction on the integrity or security of the network or the service or the terminal of an end-user, referred to in the first paragraph sub b, is being caused by traffic coming from the terminal of an end-user, the provider, prior to the taking of the measure which hinders or slows down the traffic, notifies the end-user in question, in order to allow the end-user to terminate the infraction. Where this, as a result of the required urgency, is not possible prior to the taking of the measure, the provider provides a notification of the measure as soon as possible. Where this concerns an end-user of a different provider, the first sentence does not apply.

3. Providers of internet access services do not make the price of the rates for internet access services dependent on the services and applications which are offered or used via these services.

4. Further regulations with regard to the provisions in the first to the third paragraph may be provided by way of an administrative order. A draft order provided under this paragraph will not be adopted before it is submitted to both chambers of the Parliament.

5. In order to prevent the degradation of service and the hindering or slowing down of traffic over public electronic communication networks, minimum requirements regarding the quality of service of public electronic communication services may be imposed on undertakings providing public communica­tions networks.

Slovenia[edit]

Article 203rd, Electronic Communications Act unofficial translation - Innocenzo Genna, “Slovenia reinforces net neutrality principles”, Radiobruxelleslibera, 3 January 2013 and Slovenian Electronic Communications Act

Longer unofficial translation with also related articles translated can be found on wlan slovenija blog.

(1) The Agency encourages the preservation of the open and neutral character of the internet and the access to and dissemination of information or the use of applications and services of their choice of end users.

(2) The Agency goals in the previous paragraph must be carefully considered in the exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 3 and 4 the second paragraph of the 132nd of this Act, and the third and fourth paragraphs of the 133rd of this Act and their responsibilities in relation to the implementation of the second of the first paragraph of Article 129 Article by the network operator and provider of Internet access services.

(3) Network operators and Internet access providers shall make every effort to preserve the open and neutral character of the internet, thus it may not restrict, delay or slowing Internet traffic at the level of individual services or applications, or implement measures for their evaluation, except in case: 1. necessary technical measures to ensure the smooth operation of networks and services (e.g., to avoid traffic congestion); 2. necessary steps to preserve the integrity and security of networks and services (e.g., elimination of unfair seizure of over a transmission medium - channel); 3. emergency measures for limiting unsolicited communications in accordance with the 158th of this Act; 4. decision of the court.

(4) The measures provided for in Articles 1, 2 and 3 of the preceding paragraph shall be proportionate, non-discriminatory, limited in time and to the extent that this is necessary.

(5) Network operators’ and Internet service providers’ services shall not be based on services or applications, which are provided or used by internet access services.

(6) The Agency may implement the provisions of the third, fourth and fifth paragraphs of this Article can issue a general act.

Chile[edit]

Law No. 18168 of 2010 Section 24 H. Source

Concessionaires of the telecommunications public utility providing services to Internet Access Providers together with these providers (in the understanding that Internet Access Providers shall make reference to any natural or artificial person providing commercial connectivity services between users or their Internet networks):

a) May not arbitrarily block, interfere with, discriminate against, hinder or restrict the right of any Internet user to use, send, receive or offer any legal content, application or service on the Internet, or any kind of legal Internet activity or use. In this sense, they shall offer to each user the service of Internet access or connectivity to the Internet Access Provider, as applicable, which may not make an arbitrary distinction between content, applications or services on the basis of the origin or ownership thereof, according to the relevant Internet connection configuration as per the contract in force with the users. In any case, concessionaires of the telecommunications public utility and Internet Access Providers may take any measure or action that may be necessary for purposes of traffic management and network administration, within the exclusive area of activity that has been authorized to them, provided the above is not intended to conduct actions that affect or may affect fair competition. Concessionaires and IAPs shall endeavor to preserve the privacy of the users, safeguard their users against viruses and ensure security on the network. Additionally, they may block access to certain content, applications or services, only upon express request of the users and at their expense. Under no circumstance may this block arbitrarily affect providers of Internet services and applications.

b) Such concessionaires and Internet Access Providers may not limit the right of users to add or use any kind of instruments, devices or equipment on the network, provided they are legal and do not harm or adversely affect the network or the quality of the service.

c) Concessionaires and Internet Access Providers shall offer, at the expense of the users requesting it, parental control services for content that is against the law, ethics or moral conventions, provided the user receives clear information, in advance, regarding the scope of such services.

d) Concessionaires and Internet Access Providers shall publish on their website information about the Internet access offered, its speed and the quality of the connection, making a distinction between national and international connections, and shall include information about the nature and guarantees of the service. The user may request that the concessionaire or Internet Access Provider, as applicable, deliver such information at its own expense, in writing and within a 30-day term as from the relevant request.

Peru[edit]

Law No. 29904, Art. 6 of "Law for the Promotion of Broadband and the Construction of Fiber Optic Backbone" or “Ley de Promoción de la Banda Ancha y Construcción de la Red Dorsal Nacional de Fibra Óptica.” Congreso de la República de Perú. Source

Article 6: Freedom to use broadband applications or protocols

Internet service providers will respect network neutrality and can not arbitrarily block, interfere with, discriminate against or restrict the right of any user to use an application or protocol, regardless of origin, destination, nature or property.

The Supervisory Agency for Private Investment in Telecommunications - OSIPTEL determines the behaviors that will not be considered arbitrary, concerning network neutrality.

South Korea[edit]

Article 2, 3 ,28, 50, The Telecommunications Business Act (unofficial translation), (partially amended by act No.12035,13 August 2013)

The Telecommunications Business ACT, first enacted on 30 December 1983, has been revised 38 times until now. It regulates Internet access service providers who have telecommunication backbone lines as common carriers which offer their service to the public under license authorized by the government, so the government can regulate Internet access service providers regarding high fares, and blocking or discriminating rival companies, such as mVoip(mobile Voip) services, by the law of the Telecommunications Business Act, an ex-ante regulation. But, until now, the Korean government just clarifies Net Neutrality Doctrine broadly in the guidelines; it doesn't regulate Telecom companies even when they block or discriminate against users from accessing mVoip. Rather, the Korean government has insisted that it’s the international manner to leave mVoip policies in the hand of markets like the EU. However, Korean activist groups have criticized the Korean government for leaving important Internet policies in the hand of dominant Telecom companies without the application of existing laws.


Article 2 (Definitions) (revised on 19 May 2011.)

11. The term "common telecommunications services" means Telecommunications service by means of transmission, and reception of sounds, data, and images, etc. without any change in the form or content, such as telephone services, Internet access services, etc.


Article 3 ( Service Provision Obligation) (revised on 10 August 1991.)

(1) A telecommunications carrier shall not refuse to provide any telecommunications service without any justifiable reason.


Article 28 (Notification of Terms and Conditions, etc.)(revised in 23 March 2013, because of changing the administrative agency)

(3)The Ministry of Society, ICT, and Future Planning shall authorize the terms and conditions of use, if they satisfy the following requirements.

1. The telecommunications service charges shall be calculated reasonably in consideration of the supply costs, classification of cost and profits by telecommunications service type, cost-saving by service – providing method, and impact on fair competition environments, etc.;

2. The matters on the responsibility of common carriers and its users and cost-sharing methods for the installation of telecommunications facilities and other works shall not be unfairly adverse to the users;

3. The types of use of the telecommunications line facilities by other telecommunications carrier or users shall not be unduly restricted;

4. Unduly discriminatory treatment shall not be inflicted on a specific person.


Article 50 (Prohibited Acts) (revised on 23 September 2010.)

(1) A telecommunications carrier shall not commit any of the acts falling under the following acts which injure or is likely to injure fair competition or users' interests (hereinafter referred to as “prohibited acts”) and shall not have other telecommunications carriers or third parties to commit such acts.

1. Acts of unfair discrimination, unfair refusal to conclude an agreement, or failure to perform the obligations specified under the concluded agreements without any justifiable reasons, in connection with the provision, LLU, joint utilization interconnection or joint use of telecommunications facilities, or the provision of information.

5. Acts of providing telecommunications service in a manner that is different from the terms and conditions or that significantly undermines the interests of telecommunications users.


Canada[edit]

Telecommunications Act

27. (1) Every rate charged by a Canadian carrier for a telecommunications service shall be just and reasonable.

(2) No Canadian carrier shall, in relation to the provision of a telecommunications service or the charging of a rate for it, unjustly discriminate or give an undue or unreasonable preference toward any person, including itself, or subject any person to an undue or unreasonable disadvantage.

(3) The Commission may determine in any case, as a question of fact, whether a Canadian carrier has complied with this section or section 25, 27.1 or 29, or with any decision made under section 24, 25, 29, 34 or 40.

(4) The burden of establishing before the Commission that any discrimination is not unjust or that any preference or disadvantage is not undue or unreasonable is on the Canadian carrier that discriminates, gives the preference or subjects the person to the disadvantage.

(5) In determining whether a rate is just and reasonable, the Commission may adopt any method or technique that it considers appropriate, whether based on a carrier’s return on its rate base or otherwise.

(6) Notwithstanding subsections (1) and (2), a Canadian carrier may provide telecommunications services at no charge or at a reduced rate (a) to the carrier’s directors, officers, employees or former employees; or (b) with the approval of the Commission, to any charitable organization or disadvantaged person or other person.

Proposed bills[edit]

Argentina[edit]

Argentine House of Representatives Bill 1159-D-2011 Source

SECTION 1.

Internet Service Providers, which comprise any natural or artificial person providing commercial connectivity services between users or their Internet networks, and any companies providing connectivity to Internet Access Providers:

a) May not arbitrarily block, interfere with, discriminate against, slow down or restrict the use, sending, receipt or offer or any legal content, application or service on the Internet by any user of this service, or any other kind of legal Internet activity or use.

b) Internet Service Providers and companies providing connectivity to Internet Access Providers may not limit the right of users to add or use any kind of instruments, devices or equipment on the network, provided they are legal and do not harm or adversely affect the network or the quality of the service.

c) Internet Service Providers and companies providing connectivity to Internet Access Providers may take any measure or action that may be necessary for purposes of traffic management and network administration, within the exclusive area of activity that has been authorized to them, provided the above is not intended to conduct actions that affect or may affect fair competition. Additionally, they may block access to certain content, applications or services, only upon express request of the users and at their expense. Under no circumstance may this block arbitrarily affect providers of Internet services and applications.

SECTION 2.

All ISPs shall publish on their website information about the Internet access offered, its speed (both uploading and downloading speed), and quality of the connection, making a distinction between national and international connections, and shall include information about the nature and guarantees of the service.

Bill S-1491/11 Section 1.

Telecommunications service providers and Internet Access Providers may not block, interfere with, discriminate against, hinder or restrict the right of any Internet user to use, send, receive or offer any legal content, application or service on the Internet, or any kind of legal Internet activity or use. No hierarchy or priority in the Internet information or services may be established.

The quality of the service offered may not be impaired by any traffic management measures adopted. Users may have access to all the content without the intermediation of Internet Access Providers.

Section 2.

Telecommunication service providers shall offer to each user the service of Internet access or connectivity to the provider, which may make no arbitrary distinction between content, applications or services.

Section 3.

Telecommunications service and Internet Access Providers may take any measure that may be necessary for purposes of traffic management and network administration, exclusively within the area that has been authorized to them, provided the above does not affect fair competition.

Brazil[edit]

Bill - Internet Civil Framework (Marco Civil da Internet) Source

Section 10.

The person responsible for the transmission, switching or routing of Internet traffic has the duty to treat data packets in an isonomic way, regardless of their content, origin and the use of the service, terminal or application, and it is forbidden to establish any kind of traffic discrimination or degradation other than that which would constitute a technical resource necessary to provide appropriate services, in accordance with the regulations issued by the National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) about the guarantee of network neutrality and its preservation.

Single paragraph.

In the provision of an Internet connection, whether as a free service or for a price, it is forbidden to monitor, filter, analyze or supervise the content of data packets, except in the cases expressly admitted by law.

Colombia[edit]

Law No. 1450 of 2011. Source

Section 56. Neutrality on the Internet. Internet Service Providers.

1. Internet Service Providers may not, notwithstanding the provisions of Law No. 1336 of 2009, block, interfere with, discriminate against or restrict the right of any Internet user to use, send, receive or offer any lawful content, application or service on the Internet. In this sense, they shall offer to each user Internet access or connectivity, which may not make an arbitrary distinction between content, applications or services on the basis of the origin or ownership thereof. Internet Service Providers may make offers according to the needs of the market segments or their users based on their use and consumption profiles, and this shall not be understood as discrimination.

2. Internet Service Providers may not limit the right of users to add or use any kind of instruments, devices or equipment on the network, provided they are legal and do not harm or adversely affect the network or the quality of the service.

3. Internet Service Providers shall offer to the users parental control services for content that is against the law, and shall provide users with clear information, in advance, regarding the scope of such services.

4. Internet Service Providers shall publish on their website information about the Internet access offered, the speed and quality of the service, making a distinction between national and international connections, and shall include information about the nature and guarantees of the service.

5. Internet Service Providers shall implement mechanisms to preserve the privacy of the users, protect them against viruses and ensure security on the network.

6. Internet Service Providers shall block access to certain content, applications or services, only upon express request of the users.

Paragraph.

The Communications Regulatory Commission (Comisión de Regulación de Comunicaciones) shall regulate the terms and conditions for the implementation of the provisions of this section. The initial regulation shall be issued within six months following the entry into force of this law.

European Union[edit]

France[edit]

MP Laure de la Raudière Parliamentary Bill (2012)[edit]

Source

This bill was introduced by MP Laure de la Raudière, co-author of an important report on Net neutrality (unofficial translation).

Chapter 1 : Making Net Neutrality a policy objective

  • Article 1

A paragraph IV shall be added to section L.32-1 of the Post and Electronic Communications Code as follows:

"IV. The neutrality principle is defined as the ability for net users: 1° to send and receive content of their choice, to use services or to run applications of their choice, to connect hardware and to use programs of their choice, as long as they do not harm the network; 2° to be provided with a transparent, sufficient and nondiscriminatory quality of service; 3° and subject to requirements imposed as a result of a judicial proceeding and measures required for security and unpredictable situations of congestion.

  • Article 2

In II of the L. 32-1 article of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code [defining the missions of NRA], after the 1°, the following 1° bis shall be inserted : "1° bis "pursue an objective of promoting net neutrality as defined in the IV of the present article."

  • Article 3

In I of the L. 33-1 article of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code [listing the competence of the NRA], after the b), the following b) bis shall be inserted : "b bis) "The conditions allowing for the promotion of net neutrality."

Chapter 2 (skipped: creates a unique judicial procedure for judicial blocking injunctions)

Chapter 3 : Protection of the universality and quality of the Internet

  • Article 5

Before article L. 121-83 of the Consumer Code, an article L. 121-82 shall be inserted, as follows: "Art L. 121-82-1. Internet Access Providers are only authorized to commercialize under the name "Internet access" services of electronic communications that respect the principle of neutrality, as defined in paragraph IV of article L.32-1 of the Postal and Electronic Communications code."

  • Article 6

After article L 36-11 of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code, an article L. 36-12 shall be inserted, as follows: "Art L.36-12. Arcep (NRA) is responsible for creating a monitoring body to survey the quality of the Internet networks and assess the quality of Internet access services offered by the different IAPs, with regards to the respect of the Internet neutrality principle, as defined in article L. 32-1."

  • Article 7

Following article L 36-8 of the Postal and Electronic Communications Code, an article L. 36-9 shall be inserted, as follows: "Art. L. 36-9. - When the competitive situation is insufficient, the NRA should guarantee consumers the ability to choose an Internet access solution which respects the principle of neutrality as defined in Article IV of article L. 32-1."

  • Article 8

"The NRA is to prepare a written report to thoroughly analyse the markets relating to Internet and managed services, as well as financial flows between the different types of actors and the evolution of their business models. This report should be published no later than 28 February 2013."

  • Article 9

"The NRA's expenses shall be compensated by an increase of its allowance provided by government, and correlatively the government shall create an additional tax on the fee referred to in Article 403 of the French Tax Code."

MP Christian Paul Parliamentary bill (2011)[edit]

Source

Presented by an opposition MP, the bill was eventually rejected (Unofficial translation).

  • Article 1

The principle of neutrality shall be respected by any action or decision affecting the organization, provision, or use of a network accessible to the public. This principle means the prohibition of discrimination related to content, senders or recipients of digital data communications.

  • Article 2

Technical modalities for accessing online communication services to an audience have to be understood as all the standards and specifications an equipement intended for connection to an online communication service has to comply with.

Persons whose activity is to provide access to public online communication services [ISPs] make available, for free and in an open standard, the technical modalities for using their services.

  • Article 3

[ISPs] cannot prohibit or apply specific tarifications to those of their customers who simultaneously or successively connect different devices to the same access point to online communication services.

  • Article 4

[ISPs] can only restrain their customers' ability to send and receive data in the following circumstances : – They have obtained ARCEP's (French NRA) explicit approval, within a period of 90 days following their request. – In case of emergency, while minimizing the infringement to the neutrality principle, and informing the ARCEP within a period of 48 hours. The NRA will give an opinion on the adequacy of the measures taken within 7 days. – A decision taken by an independent judicial authority. Restriction or prohibition of access can only be ordered if it has no effect on digital data exchanges other than those directly targeted.

  • Article 5

[ISPs] provide users, for free and in an open standard, with the technical modalities for inter-connecting their services. Those modalities include particularly flow rates, priorities and any element that can affect data transmission through this inter-connection.

  • Article 6

[ISPs] can only grant priority to a data flow : – Under the condition that all other data flows intended for the same usage, whatever their protocol or other transmission modalities, benefit from the same priority; – A decision has been taken by an independent judicial authority. Restriction or prohibition of access can only be ordered if it has no effect on digital data exchanges other than those directly targeted.

  • Article 7

After it has been referred with facts likely to amount to an infringement to obligations defined at articles 1 to 6, or after survey of the modalities defined in paragraph 2 of article 2, or after survey of the modalities defined in paragraph 1 of article 5, ARCEP sends the person responsible of those facts a recommandation reminding him the provisions of articles 1 to 6 and enjoining him to comply with the obligation they define.

This recommandation also includes information on the expected negative effect this infringement will have.

In case of a reoccurence of acts which could be construed as a breach of the obligations laid down in Articles 1 to 6 within a month of sending the recommendation referred to in the first paragraph, ARCEP may submit a new recommendation with the same information provided in the previous one. This recommendation letter may be sent by recorded delivery , or by any other suitable means which will establish proof of the date on which the recommendation was received.

Shall be punished by a fine of between one euro and 10 million euros per recorded infringement the reoccurence of acts which may constitute a breach of the obligations laid down in Articles 1 to 6 after a period of one month after receipt of the recommendation described in the second paragraph. The amount of the fine takes into account the economic and social impact of the breach, the revenue of the offender in the case of a legal person (corporation) or its resources in the case of an natural person (individual), any recommendation made by the CNIL [French data protection authority] or by the Competition Authority.

The ARCEP President submits the breaches to the obligations established in Articles 1 to 6 which may be constitutive of practices impeding the free exercise of competition, of which he is aware, to the Competition Authority.

The ARCEP President can appeal to the CNIL for breaches of the obligations laid down in Articles 1 to 6.

The recommendations made on the basis of the present Article shall state the dates and time that the alledged acts which may constitute a breach of the obligations laid down in Articles 1 and 2 were recorded, as well as all relevant technical information. The telephone number, postal and electronic addresses where the recipient may address, if he wishes, comments to the ARCEP will be provided in the recommendations.

The ARCEP may keep the technical data made ​​available for the necessary duration of the exercise of its powers conferred through the present article.

The decisions of the regulatory body provisioned in this article shall be made public. They shall be notified to the parties who may appeal before the Court of Appeal of Paris. The appeal has a suspensive effect.

  • Article 8

Expenses which could result from the ARCEP's application of this Act are compensated accordingly by creating a fee which is added to the fees referred to in Articles 575 and 575A of the French tax code.

Belgium[edit]

Mexico[edit]

Bill to amend the Federal Telecommunications Law (Ley Federal de Telecomunicaciones Source

Section 44 XVI.

Where public telecommunication network concessionaires provide Internet access, whether land or mobile-based, they shall ensure unrestricted network traffic and shall abstain from blocking, discriminating against, hindering or restricting the right of users to access, read, send, receive, hire or offer any lawful content, service or application. Internet Access Providers that are not concessionaires but make use of a public telecommunication network shall also abide by the provisions in this paragraph.

Soft-law[edit]

Finland[edit]

France[edit]

Arcep's 10 proposals (2010)[edit]

Source

Arcep (French telecom regulatory authority) has argued that it could enforce those principles, but has yet to do so. It is doubtful whether they enjoy sufficient legal basis.

  • 1. Freedom and quality of Internet access

ARCEP recommends that, in accordance with the legislative provisions that are in effect, ISPs marketing Internet access be required to provide end users with: - the ability to send and receive the content of their choice; - the ability to use the services and run the applications of their choice; - connect the hardware and use the programmes of their choice, provided they do not harm the network ; - a sufficiently high and transparent quality of service.

There may be exceptions to this principle, provided they comply with the guidelines set out in proposed recommendation no. 3.

  • 2. Non-discrimination between Internet traffic streams

On the matter of Internet access, ARCEP recommends that, as a general rule, no differentiation be made between the way in which each individual data stream is treated, whether according to the type of content, the service, application, device or the address of the stream's origin or destination. This applies to all points along the network, including interconnection points.

There may be exceptions to this principle, provided they comply with the guidelines set out in proposed recommendation no. 3.

  • 3. Supervising Internet traffic management mechanisms

Marking exceptions to the principles stated in proposals nos. 1 and 2, and to limit any possible deviations from these principles, ARCEP recommends that when ISPs do employ traffic management mechanisms for ensuring access to the Internet, that they comply with the general principles of relevance, proportionality, efficiency, non discrimination between parties and transparency.

  • 4. Managed services

To maintain all of the players' capacity to innovate, all electronic communications operators must be able to market "managed services" alongside Internet access, to both end users and information society service vendors (ISV), provided that the managed service does not degrade the quality of Internet access below a certain satisfactory level, and that vendors act in accordance with existing competition laws and sector-specific regulation.

  • 5. Increased transparency with respect to end users

ISPs must provide end users - in both their sales material and the contractual terms and conditions for their electronic communications services, and in the information that is available to the customers of these offers for the duration of their service contract - with clear, precise and relevant information on: - the services and applications that can be accessed through these data services, - their quality of service, - their possible limitations, - and any traffic management practices that might affect them.

To this end, ARCEP recommends in particular that: - any restriction of a data transmission service marking a departure from the principles of freedom of use and non discrimination between the streams, stated in proposals nos. 1 and 2, be stipulated explicitly in the ISP's sales material and contractual clauses, in a clear and understandable fashion; - the term "Internet" cannot be used to qualify these services if certain of these restrictions do not comply with the demands of proposal no. 3; - the term "unlimited" cannot be used to describe service offerings that include "fair use" type limitations that result in access being cut off temporarily or extra billing for the services, or an excessive degradation of access speeds or the quality of the service.

The Authority will initially request that ISPs and consumer association representatives work together to define common systems for providing end users with information on the limitations of the offers and their traffic management practices, and to submit their proposals on the matter to ARCEP by the end of Q1 2011.

Subsequently, should it prove necessary, the Authority could work in tandem with the General directorate for fair trade, consumer affairs and fraud control, "DGCCRF" (Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes), to complete these proposals.

  • 6. Monitoring traffic management practices

ARCEP will ask ISPs and their representative associations, ISVs and their representative associations, as well as consumer associations to work together to identify and qualify the different types of traffic management practices, including "fair use" limitations associated with so-called "unlimited" offers, and to submit their proposals on the matter to ARCEP by the end of Q1 2011.

In the meantime, the Authority will monitor the evolution of the traffic management practices that operators are employing, in particular to evaluate whether they are complying with the criteria of relevance, proportionality, efficiency, non discrimination between parties and transparency.

Subsequently, should it prove necessary, the Authority could work in tandem with the DGCCRF to complete these proposals.

  • 7. Monitoring the quality of the Internet access service

To ensure that the quality of the Internet access service is both sufficiently high and transparent, ARCEP will be devoting efforts to: - define the main Internet access quality of service parameters and establish suitable indicators; - require ISPs to publish these QoS indicators for their retail data transmission services periodically, particularly for Internet access on both fixed and mobile networks.

This work will be performed in tandem with the DGCCRF, operators and their representative associations, ISVs and their representative associations, as well as consumer associations

  • 8. Monitoring the data interconnection market

ARCEP recommends: - that parties providing end users with access to the Internet grant, in an objective and non-discriminatory fashion, all reasonable requests for interconnection whose purpose is to provide these users with access to Internet services or applications; - that parties providing ISVs with access to the Internet grant, in an objective and non-discriminatory fashion, all reasonable requests for interconnection whose purpose is to make these vendors' services or applications accessible to Internet users.

To eradicate the opacity that currently exists in data interconnection markets, and to obtain information that will be useful to exercising its powers, the Authority will soon adopting a decision on the periodical collection of information on these markets, before the end of Q1 2011.

Based in part on this information, the Authority will later assess whether it is necessary to implement more prescriptive regulatory measures in these markets.

  • 9. Taking account of the ISV's role in Net neutrality

ARCEP underscores the fact that users' actual ability to exercise their freedom to choose between offers (services/applications/content) made available by ISVs over the Internet implies that these vendors comply with: - a principle of non-discrimination towards the different operators ability to access these offers; - principles of objectivity and transparency with respect to users, in terms of the rules employed, in cases where the ISV selects and/or ranks content coming from third parties, which is notably the case with search engines.

The Authority invites the private and public parties concerned to take these issues into full consideration.

  • 10. Increasing the neutrality of devices

As part of the upcoming review of the RTTE Directive, ARCEP recommends that the opportunity to complete this directive be examined, to take better account of developments in the devices market, particularly the growing importance of the software layers and interactions with ISVs.

The Authority invites the private and public parties concerned to take these issues into full consideration.

  • Definitions

- “Internet”: the public network, routed by IP, made up of some 50,000 autonomous systems recognised by the IANA (Internet Assigned Numbers Authority).

-“Internet access”: a service that consists of providing the public with the ability to send and receive data by using the IP communication protocol, from all or virtually all points, designated by an internet address made public, of all of the interconnected public and private networks around the world that make up the internet.

-“Managed services”: services providing access to content/services/applications through electronic means, for which the network operator guarantees certain specific features end-to-end and/or over a given period of time, thanks to the techniques it uses, either directly on the network it owns and operates, or through agreements with the operators responsible for routing traffic.

United Kingdom[edit]

The Code of Practice - July 2012 Source

This voluntary code of practice puts forward a set of commitments agreed by signatories in support of the open internet. This voluntary code of practice should be read in conjunction with the existing voluntary code of practice on traffic management

Signatories to this code agree to make the following commitments regarding access to legal services, safeguarding against negative discrimination and supporting traffic management transparency. These are rooted in practical commitments that individual ISPs are able tomake. These commitments should be read in accordance with the following explanatory section regarding their application in practice.

1. Signatories to this code support the concept of the open internet and the general principle that legal content, applications and services, or categories thereof should not be blocked. Whilst products that offer full internet access will be the norm, in order to support product differentiation and consumer choice, ISPs retain the ability to offer alternative types of products. In instances where certain classes of legal content, applications and/or services are unavailable on a product signatories to this code will:

i. Not use the term “internet access” to describe or market such products; and ii. Ensure that any restrictions are effectively communicated to consumers, building on the commitments made in the transparency code of practice.

2. Signatories to this code realise the positive impact some forms of discrimination could have in supporting innovation and choice and retain the right to develop and offer managed services. In recognising however that some forms of discrimination may be harmful, signatories undertake that traffic management will not be deployed in a manner that targets and degrades the content or application(s) of specific providers. Signatories also recognise the importance of best efforts internet access being a viable choice for consumers alongside any managed services that might be developed and offered.

3. Signatories support the provision of clear and transparent traffic management policies as outlined in the voluntary code of practice for traffic management transparency. What these commitments mean in practice for traffic management transparency.

SIGNATORIES: BE BT BSkyB KCOM giffgaff O2 Plusnet TalkTalk Tesco Mobile Three

Norway[edit]

Guidelines for Internet neutrality - 2009 Source

These network neutrality guidelines have been drawn up by the Norwegian Post and Telecommunications Authority (NPT) in collaboration with various industry players, such as Internet service providers (ISPs), industry organisations, content providers and consumer protection agencies. The guidelines are intended to ensure that the Internet remains an open and non-discriminatory platform for all types of communication and content distribution. NPT has sought to establish principles for network neutrality that as many parties as possible can endorse and comply with. These principles will not have any formal legal status, nor will NPT be able to issue sanctions on the basis thereof.

Principle 1 Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection with a predefined capacity and quality. This means that:

  • The capacity and quality of the Internet connection is to be clearly specified.
  • If the physical connection is shared with other services, it must be stated clearly how the capacity is shared between Internet traffic and the other services.

A. The capacity and quality of the Internet connection is to be clearly specified. This principle states that Internet users are to be given sufficient information about the characteristics of the Internet connection, so that they know what resource is being provided for communication with the Internet in the form this has traditionally had. This is normally referred to as “best effort” Internet. It is how this resource is managed that is described in Principles 2 and 3.

B. If the connection is shared with other services, it must be stated clearly how the capacity is shared between Internet traffic and the other services. The connection service that a customer subscribes to from a provider shall have as its primary function – or one of its primary functions – to provide the end user with access to the Internet. If other services are provided to the user in addition to the Internet connection, the subscription terms must state how the use of the other services will affect the Internet access capacity.

Principle 2 Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that enables them to - send and receive content of their choice (i) use services and run applications of their choice, (ii) connect hardware and use software of their choice that do not harm the network. However, this does not mean that the principle can be used to legitimise unlawful or harmful actions. This principle states that the user shall have free use of the basic Internet connection. An important characteristic of Internet technology is that it can be used for all forms of communication, which is why it is important that this characteristic is not degraded by the provider.

A. This principle may not be used to legitimise unlawful or harmful actions. The principle of network neutrality shall not be interpreted in a manner at variance with current law. For example, the unlawful distribution of copyrighted content with the aid of P2P file sharing would still be an illegal act by the user. Furthermore, the current practice of ISPs to block child pornography will not infringe this principle. The same may be said regarding spam filters and measures to counteract denial-of-service attacks and infected PCs. It will be in the interest of all users for the ISP to protect the network through which its users communicate. The ISPs are to publish as well as inform all users of all measures of this type.

Principle 3 Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection that is free of discrimination with regard to type of application, service or content or based on sender or receiver address. This means that there shall be no discrimination among individual data streams that use the basic Internet service. But it does not mean that the principle precludes traffic management efforts on an operator’s own network to block activities that harm the network, comply with orders from the authorities, ensure the quality of service for specific applications that require this, deal with special situations of temporary network overload or prioritise traffic on an individual user’s connection according to the user’s wishes.

Principle 3 expands on the more qualitative approach we find in Principle 2 by specifying how this is to be understood quantitatively.

A. There shall be no discrimination among individual data streams that use the basic Internet service. This principle states that the sharing of capacity among users shall be done in the fairest and most efficient manner that ensures a functional Internet. This is a matter that is difficult to define precisely. Since different users (on both ends of the various communication sessions) can be connected to the network at different bandwidths, it is reasonable that they will experience different capacity for end-to-end communication. As the competition for bandwidth will typically occur on particular places on the network, either network internal connections, external peering/transit connections and the actual access connection, the principle should apply to all types of communication lines within the framework that the connection contracts (subscription contracts, peering/transit contracts, SLAs, etc.) set. An absolutely fair sharing of bandwidth for all Internet users applied to all communication lines would be difficult to achieve in practice. Inherent in the principle, however, is that there must be no unreasonable manipulation or degradation of traffic for individual data streams.

B. However, this principle does not preclude traffic management efforts on an operator’s own network to block activities that harm the network, comply with orders from the authorities, ensure the quality of service for specific applications that require this, deal with special situations of temporary network overload or prioritise traffic on an individual user’s connection according to the user’s wishes. If it becomes necessary to manage traffic streams on the network for these reasons, the operator must be able to account for how this management complies with the principle. Examples of legitimate blocking of harmful activities are measures to combat denial-of-service attacks and spam (cf. Principle 2). An example of orders from the authorities is the requirements of the Electronic Communications Act to give priority to functions critical to society in crisis or emergency situations. Examples of application types whose quality of service may require special handling are telephony and video. In special situations of temporary network overload it is also deemed to be a reasonable measure to ensure that network resources are used as efficiently as possible. However, such measures must always be carried out in a non-discriminatory manner that does not give priority to selected users or content/service providers. There must be a distinction between giving priority to traffic without the user’s consent and prioritising that is done on the user’s own Internet connection according to the user’s wishes. Some users may need help from the provider to prioritise the traffic on their own connection when the amount of traffic exceeds total capacity. In principle it is not at variance with network neutrality when this is done for an individual user in isolation. This requires, however, that the users have a real opportunity to choose an Internet connection without prioritising. The methods for measures of this type shall be published and disclosed to users.

South Korea[edit]

The Guidelines on the Net Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management (unofficial translation) have been enacted since 26 December 2011 by the Korean Communications Commission. It clarifies Net Neutrality Doctrine broadly, and Korean activists groups criticize that there are some clauses which leave important net neutrality policies at the hand of dominant Telecom companies, and which sidestep the law, because of the below clauses 7 and 8. Actually, the Korean Communications Commission declared they didn't have any plan to set up policy direction on blocking or discrimination in mVoip issues after the announcement of these guidelines.

Ⅰ. Objective

These guidelines purpose to foster an open and fair Internet usage environment, and to improve a healthy and sustainable Information and Communication Technology (hereinafter referred to as “ICT”) ecosystem through the basic principles for Net Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management.

Ⅱ. Basic Principles


1. User’s Rights

Internet users have the right to use lawful content, application, service, and not harmful devices or equipment freely, and to be provided with information regarding Internet traffic management by related carriers.

  • Internet users mean end users.

2. Transparency on Internet Traffic Management

An Internet access service provider shall disclose the traffic management policy which clarifies objectives, scopes, conditions, processes, and ways, etc. of Internet traffic management. When implementing the necessary measures of traffic management, it shall inform the relevant users of the facts and the effects. However, when there are unavoidable reasons that prevent them from informing users of important information, it can be replaced by a notice. The Korean Communications Commission could lay down additional rules regarding the scopes and the ways of disclosure, and the information to be provided.

  • An Internet access service provider means a Telecommunications carrier which provides a fixed and wireless Internet access service pursuant to the Telecommunications Business Act.

3. No Blocking

An Internet service provider shall not block lawful content, applications, services, or non-harmful devices or equipment. However, it is allowed when the need for reasonable traffic management is approved.

4. No Unreasonable Discrimination

An Internet access service provider shall not unreasonably discriminate against any lawful contents according to the types or providers of these contents, applications, and services. However, it is allowed when the need for reasonable traffic management is approved.

5. Reasonable Traffic Management

The need for reasonable traffic management includes, but is not limited to, the following subparagraphs. The Korean Communications Commission will lay down additional rules on the scope condition, processes, ways of reasonable traffic management; standard judgment on whether traffic management is reasonable, etc. In these cases, it could be different, according to the net types (fixed or wireless), and technology characteristics.

1 For Net security and stability 2 For protecting most users’ profits by avoiding net over-congestion through temporary overload 3 For the request of states’ agencies based laws, or need of enforcement by other laws.

Ⅲ. Managed Service

6. An Internet access service provider could provide Managed Service, without quality deterioration of Best Effort Internet below the reasonable standard. The Korean Communications Commission additionally monitors the Best Effort Internet’s quality, and the effect on the market when Managed Service is implemented.

  • Managed Service means a service which guarantees the traffic transmission quality, such as transmission bandwidth, etc., by traffic management technology other than generally Best Effort Internet.

Ⅳ. Mutual Cooperation

7. Internet access service providers, content/application/service providers, etc. shall collaborate with each other for the healthy and sustainable development of the ICT ecosystem, and according to principle of good faith, they especially shall cooperate to give information regarding providing content/applications/service, and operating a stabilized Net, etc. when necessary. Also they could organize a policy consultative body for building market self-regulating standards, etc. regarding Net neutrality and Internet traffic management when necessary.


Ⅴ. Building and Managing Policy Consultative Body

8. The Korean Communications Commission builds and manages the additional policy consultative body in which interest groups, specialists, etc., participate, for the improving Internet traffic management transparency, pertaining to the necessary measurement of these guidelines implementation, such as providing judgment standards for reasonable traffic management scopes, conditions, procedures, whether it is reasonable, discussing on policy direction for spreading emerging services, such as mVoIP, etc., and trying to find a way for new market order according to the ICT ecosystem change. The Korean Communications Commission additionally will decide its requirements regarding its members, management, etc. .

Comparison table[edit]

How do existing Net neutrality regulations meet our requirements?

country type mobile/fixed protects against arbitrary discrimination allows specialised services allows legal discrimination allows Customer Premise Equipment
Chile law both yes no yes (legal CAP) yes
Netherlands law both yes yes (but no preferential treatment in net work management and no price differences) yes (court order + law) ?
Slovenia law both yes no (bundling not allowed - ISPs may not see services offered over the internet) yes (only court order) ?
South Korea law both yes yes (only best-effort quality degradation safeguard) yes (legal content) yes
Brazil plan both yes ? ? ?
Germany plan ? ? ? ? ?
France soft-law (NRA's "proposals", unlikely to be enforced) both yes yes (only best-effort quality degradation safeguard) yes (court order) yes (freedom to connect device)
Norway soft law ? ? ? ? ?
USA soft law only fixed ? ? yes (legal content) ?
EU regulation DSM plan both yes yes yes (court order + laws + prevention or impediment of "serious crimes") yes (isp has to offer configuration information)

Proposed model law on Net neutrality[edit]

Proposal by IGF dynamic coalition on Net neutrality[edit]

Source

  • 1) Network neutrality is the principle according to which Internet traffic shall be treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference regardless of its sender, recipient, type or content, so that Internet users’ freedom of choice is not restricted by favouring or disfavouring the transmission of Internet traffic associated with particular content, services, applications, or devices.
  • 2) In accordance with the network neutrality principle, Internet service providers shall refrain from discriminating, restricting, or otherwise interfering with the transmission of Internet traffic, unless such interference is strictly necessary and proportionate to: a) give effect to a legislative provision or court order; b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services and the Internet users' terminal equipment; c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications for direct marketing purposes to Internet users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures; d) comply with an explicit request from the subscriber, provided that this request is given freely and is not incentivised by the Internet service provider or its commercial partner; e) mitigate the effects of temporary and exceptional network congestion, primarily by means of application-agnostic measures or, when these measures do not prove efficient, by means of application-specific measures.
  • 3) The network neutrality principle shall apply to all Internet access services and Internet transit services offered by ISPs, regardless of the underlying technology used to transmit signals.
  • 4) The network neutrality principle need not apply to specialised services. Internet service providers should be allowed to offer specialised services in addition to Internet access service, provided that such offerings are not to the detriment of Internet access services, or their performance, affordability, or quality. Offerings to deliver specialised services should be provided on a non-discriminatory basis and their adoption by Internet users should be voluntary.
  • 5) Subscribers of Internet access service have the right to receive and use a public and globally unique Internet address.
  • 6) Any techniques to inspect or analyse Internet traffic shall be in accordance with privacy and data protection legislation. By default, such techniques should only examine header information. The use of any technique which inspects or analyses the content of communications should be reviewed by the relevant national data protection authority to assess compliance with the applicable privacy and data protection obligations.
  • 7) Internet service providers shall provide intelligible and transparent information with regard to their traffic management practices and usage polices, notably with regard to the coexistence of Internet access service and specialised services. When network capacity is shared between Internet access services and specialised services, the criteria whereby network capacity is shared, shall be clearly stated.
  • 8) The competent national regulatory authority shall: a) be mandated to regularly monitor and report on Internet traffic management practices and usage polices, in order to ensure network neutrality, evaluate the potential impact of the aforementioned practices and policies on fundamental rights, ensure the provision of a sufficient quality of service and the allocation of a satisfactory level of network capacity to the Internet. Reporting should be done in an open and transparent fashion and reports shall be made freely available to the public; b) put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures aimed at addressing network neutrality complaints. To this end, all Internet users shall be entitled to make use of such complaint procedures in front of the relevant authority ; c) respond to the complaints within a reasonable time and be able to use necessary measures in order to sanction thebreach of the network neutrality principle. This authority must have the necessary resources to undertake the aforementioned duties in a timelyand effective manner.
  • 9) Definitions: a) The “Internet” is the publicly accessible electronic communications network of networks that use the Internet Protocol for communication with endpoints reachable, directly or through network address translation, via a globally unique Internet address. b) The expression “Internet service provider” refers to any legal person that offers Internet access service to the public or Internet transit service to another ISP. c) The expression “Internet access service” refers to a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the Internet, and thereby provides the ability to the subscriber or Internet user to receive and impart data from and to the Internet, irrespective of the underlying technology used to transmit signals. d) The expression “Internet transit service” refers to the electronic communications service that provides connectivity between Internet service providers. e) The expression “Internet traffic” refers to any flow of data packets transmitted through the Internet, regardless of the application or device that generated it. f) The expression “specialised services” refers to electronic communications services that are provided and operated within closed electronic communications networks using the Internet Protocol, but not being part of the Internet. The expression “closed electronic communications networks” refers to networks that rely on strict admission control. g) The expression “application-agnostic” refers to Internet traffic management practices, measures and techniques that do not depend on the characteristics of specific applications, content, services, devices and uses. h) The expression “subscriber” refers to the natural or legal person who has entered into an agreement with an Internet service provider to receiveInternet access service. j) The expression “Internet user” refers to the natural or legal person who is using Internet access service, and in that capacity has the freedom to impart and receive information, and to use or offer applications and services through devices of their choice. The Internet user may be the subscriber, or any person to whom the subscriber has granted the right to use the Internet access service s/he receives. Any legal person offering content and/or applications on the Internet is also an Internet user.