Network Neutrality resolution amendments

20/10/2011: The overall good [www.laquadrature.net/files/Net_neutrality_motion_for_a_resolution.pdf resolution] on Net neutrality has been unanimously adopted by the Industry (ITRE) committee of the EU Parliament! For a short analysis, see La Quadrature's press release (in english and french).

• All the compromise amendments have been adopted.
• Amendments 7, 8, 45, 46, 47, 56 and 57 have also been adopted.

The text adopted today in the ITRE committee vote will now move to be adopted in plenary without the possibility of further amendments, in a vote scheduled for late-November.

Download La Quadrature's voting list sent to the ITRE committee ahead of the vote.

26/09/2011 - Below are the amendments to the Net neutrality resolution, currently discussed by the Industry, Transport, Research, Energy committee of the EU Parliament. So far, the draft resolution is very weak, and play into the hands of telecom operators, who are lobbying hard to make it worse.

Compromise amendments

Compromise amendment 1 +

Draft motion for a resolution Recital D a (new)

Proposes a compromise for AMs 3 (Kammerevert, Groote), 4 (Audy, Franco), 5 (Trautmann), 9 (Tzavela) and 10 (Belet)

Da. whereas the Internet's open character has been a key driver of competitiveness, economic growth, social development and innovation which has led to spectacular levels of development in online applications, content and services and thus of growth in the offer and the demand of content and services; has made it a vitally important accelerator in the free circulation of knowledge, ideas and information, including in countries where there is limited access to independent media,

Compromise amendment 2

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 4

Proposes a compromise for AMs 28 (Tzavela) and 29 (Trautmann)

4. Calls on the Commission, the Member States and BEREC to ensure consistency in the approach on net neutrality and effective implementation of the EU Telecom regulatory framework;

Compromise amendment 3

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 5

Proposes a compromise for AMs 21 (Trautmann), 30 (van Nistelrooij) and 31 (Tsoukalas) and 32 (Kammerevert, Groote)

5. Emphasizes that any solution proposed on the issue of net neutrality can be effective only through a consistent European approach; therefore asks the Commission to closely follow the adoption of any national regulations related to net neutrality, in terms of the effects on the respective national market as well as on the Internal Market; considers it would benefit all stakeholders if the Commission were to provide EU-wide guidelines, including with regard to the mobile market, to ensure that the provisions of the Telecoms package on net neutrality are properly and consistently applied and enforced;

Compromise amendment 4 +

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 8

Proposes a compromise for AMs 42 (Verheyen), 43 (Trautmann), 44 (Lamberts)

8. Draws the attention to the serious risks of departing from network neutrality such as anticompetitive behaviour, blockage of innovation, restriction on freedom of expression and on media pluralism, lack of consumer awareness and infringement of privacy which will be detrimental to businesses, to consumers and the democratic society as a whole and recalls the opinion of the EDPS on the impact of traffic management practices on the confidentiality of communications;

Compromise amendment 5 +

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 10

Proposes a compromise for AMs 50 (Trautmann), 51 (Lamberts), 52 (Schaatje), 53 (Hall), 54 (Rohde, Ek - identical to AM 53) and 55 (Toia)

10. Considers that effective competition in electronic communication services, transparency on traffic management and quality of service as well as ease of switching are among the minimum necessary conditions for net neutrality, assuring end-users of freedom of choice and requests;

Compromise amendment 6 +

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 1

Proposes a compromise for AMs 12 (Verheyen), 13 (Trautmann) and IMCO paragraph 1

1. Welcomes the Commission's Communication and agrees with its analysis, in particular on the necessity to preserve the open and neutral character of the internet as a key driver of innovation and consumer demand while ensuring that the internet can continue to provide high-quality services in a framework that promotes and respects fundamental rights;

Compromise amendment 7

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 2

Proposes a compromise for AMs 20 (Niebler), 22 (Audy, Franco), 23 (Belet), 25 (Rohde, Ek)

2. Notes that the conclusions of the Commission’s Communication indicate that there is at this stage no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality on the European level;

Paragraph 2a (new) 2a. Points however to the potential for anti-competitive and discriminatory behaviour in traffic management in particular by vertically integrated companies; welcomes the Commission's intention to publish the evidence emerging from BEREC's investigations into practices potentially affecting net neutrality in Member States;

Compromise amendment 8 ++

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 3 a (new)

Proposes a compromise for AMs 11 (Belet, Niebler), 14 (Kammerevert, Groote), (26 (Rohde, Ek), 27 (Gyürk), 48 (Trautmann), 49 (Trautmann), 59 (Hadjigeorgiou), 62 (Lamberts), 73 (Belet) and IMCO paragraph 5

3a. Calls on the Commission, together with BEREC in cooperation with Member States to closely monitor the development of traffic management practices and interconnection agreements, in particular related to blocking and throttling of or excessive price for VoIP and file sharing, as well as to anticompetitive behaviour and excessive degradation of quality as required by the Telecom regulatory framework and calls on the Commission consequently to guard that Internet Service Providers do not block, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any content, application, or service of their choice irrespective of source or target;

3b Asks the Commission to provide the European Parliament with information on current traffic management practices, the interconnection market and network congestion as well as any relation to lack of investments; calls on the Commission to further analyse the issue of "device neutrality";

Compromise amendment 9 +

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 11

Proposes a compromise for AMs 41 (Belet), 56 (Tsoukalas), 63 (Audy, Franco), 64 (Rohde, Ek), 65 (Kammerevert, Groote), 66 (Tzavela), 67 (Trautmann), 68 (Toia), 69 (Hall - identical to 68), 70 (Niebler), 71 (Tsoukalas), 72 (van Nistelrooij) and AM IMCO paragraphs 4 and 6

11. Asks the Commission to ensure the consistent application and enforcement of the existing EU regulatory framework for communications and to assess within six months after the publication of the findings of BEREC's investigation whether further regulatory measures are needed in order to ensure freedom of expression freedom of access to information, freedom of choice for consumers and media-pluralism as well as to achieve effective competition, innovation, facilitate wide-ranging benefits for citizens, business and public administration uses of the Internet and underlines that any European regulatory proposal in the area of net neutrality should be subject to an impact assessment;

Compromise amendment 10 -

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 7   Proposes a compromise for AMs 15 (Kammerevert, Groote), 33 (Enciu), 35 (Trautmann), 36 (Rohde, Ek), 37 (Tsoukalas), 38 (Niebler), 39 (Tzavela), 40 (van Nistelrooij), 60 (Hadjigeorgiou) and IMCO paragraphs 2 and 3

  7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion; in this context operators may, subject to NRAs scrutiny, use procedures to measure and shape Internet traffic in order to maintain networks' functional capacity and stability and to meet quality of service requirements; urges the competent national authorities to use their full powers under the Universal Services Directive to impose minimum QoS standards and believes that ensuring quality in time-critical service traffic shall not be an argument for abandoning the best-effort principle;

  Calls for transparency in traffic management including better information for end-users and stresses the need to enable consumers to make informed choices and to be effectively able to switch to a new provider that can best suit their needs and preferences including the speed and volume of downloads and services and recalls to this regard the importance of providing consumers with clear, effective, meaningful and comparable information on all concerned commercial practices with equivalent effect in particular on mobile internet;

Compromise amendment 11 +

Draft motion for a resolution Paragraph 7a (new)

Proposes a compromise for AMs 16-17 (Kammerevert, Groote), 34 (Trautmann), 58 (Belet), 36 (Ek, Rohde)

  7a. Urges the competent national authorities to ensure that traffic management interventions do not involve anti-competitive or harmful discrimination; believes specialised [or managed] services should not be detrimental to the safeguard of a robust"best effort" internet access, thus fostering innovation and freedom of expression, ensuring competition and avoiding a new digital divide. 

Amendments 1 – 10

Amendment 1 +

Amendement 1 Citation X (new) Marietje Schaake +
	- having regard of the amendment to the Dutch telecommunications law to article 7.4, adding a new section 7.4a,
Comments:

Amendment 2

Amendement 2 Citation X (new) Catherine Trautmann
	- having regards to the May 2011 IMCO study "Network Neutrality: Challenges and responses in the EU and in the U.S." (IP/A/IMCO/ST/2011-02),
Comments:

Amendment 3 +

Amendement 3 Recital D a (new) Petra Kammerevert, Matthias Groote +
	Da. in der Erwägung, dass sich auf Grundlage der Netzneutralität das Internet als Innovationsmotor für wirtschaftliche und gesellschaftliche Entwicklung erwiesen hat und durch sie Vielfalt, Pluralismus, kommunikative Chancengleichheit, niedrige Zugangsbarrieren und ein fairer Wettbewerb in der modernen Kommuinikation sichergestellt werden;
Comments:

Amendment 4 +

Amendement 4 Recital D a (new) Jean-Pierre Audy, Gaston Franco +
	Da. whereas the Internet's open character has been a key driver of innovation which has led to spectacular levels of development in online applications, content and services and thus of growth in the offer and the demand of content and services; has made it a vitally important accelerator in the free circulation of knowledge, ideas and information, including in countries where there is limited access to independent news,
Comments:

Amendment 5 +

Amendement 5 Recital D a (new) Catherine Trautmann +
	Da. whereas the Internet's open character has been a key driver of innovation which has led to spectacular levels of development in online applications, content and services and thus of growth in the offer and the demand of content and services; has made it a vitally important accelerator in the free circulation of knowledge, ideas and information, including in countries where there is limited access to independent news,
Comments:

Amendment 6 +

Amendement 6 Recital D a (new) Marietje Schaake +
	Da.whereas the Dutch Parliament adopted an amendment to its telecommunication law, thereby ensuring net neutrality through ex ante regulation, as a reaction to anti-competitive behaviour by mobile telecommunication operators which threatens to hamper innovation in the telecommunication sector, which hurts business, consumers and society as a whole,
Comments:

Amendment 7 -

Amendement 7 Recital D a (new) Ivo Belet -
	Da. whereas there are third countries that have prevented mobile broadband providers from blocking lawful websites and VoIP or video-telephony applications that compete with their own voice or video telephony services,
Comments: Good amendment, but dangerous reference to "lawful content", which suggests that operators could legitimately restrict communications without prior judicial decision.

Amendment 8

Amendement 8 Recital E Catherine Trautmann
E. whereas, internet services are offered on an international scale and the internet is at the very centre of the global economy,	E. whereas, internet services are offered on a cross-border scale and the internet is at the very centre of the global economy,
Comments:

Amendment 9

Amendement 9 Recital E a (new) Niki Tzavela
	Ea. whereas its open character has been a key driver of the growth of the Internet to date, and has facilitated an open environment conducive to the spectacular levels of innovation in online applications, content and services networks, meeting and stimulating demand,
Comments:

Amendment 10

Amendement 10 Recital F a (new) Ivo Belet
	Fa. whereas the internet's open character has been a key driver of innovation which has led to the development of online applications, content and services,
Comments:

Amendments 11 – 20

Amendment 11 --

Amendement 11 Paragraph 1 Ivo Belet, Angelika Niebler --
1. Welcomes the communication of the Commission and agrees with the analysis, in particular on the need of preserving the open and neutral character of the internet;	1. Welcomes the communication of the Commission and agrees with the analysis, in particular on the need of preserving the open and neutral character of the internet; calls on the European Commission to ensure that internet service providers do not block, interfere with, discriminate against, impair, or degrade the ability of any person to use a broadband service to access, use, send, post, receive, or offer any lawful content, application, or service made available via the Internet;
Comments: This amendment is very good in general but suffers from a a very dangerous reference to "lawful content". The term is often referred to in the war on file-sharing in defense of the automatized filtering of online communications, whereby ISPs would engage in "cooperation" (aka privatized censorship) with copyright holders to deter infringements. In a democratic society abiding by the rule of law, only a judge should be able to deem any content, service or application illegal. This amendment could be voted upon through a "split vote", so as to delete the reference to "lawful".

Amendment 12

Amendement 12 Paragraph 1 Sabine Verheyen
1. Welcomes the communication of the Commission and agrees with the analysis, in particular on the need of preserving the open and neutral character of the internet;	1. Welcomes the communication of the Commission and agrees with the analysis, in particular on the need of preserving the open and neutral character of the internet as a key driver for innovation and consumer demand;
Comments:

Amendment 13 +

Amendement 13 Paragraph 1 Catherine Trautmann +
1. Welcomes the communication of the Commission and agrees with the analysis, in particular on the need of preserving the open and neutral character of the internet;	1. Welcomes the communication of the Commission and agrees with the analysis, in particular on the necessity to preserve the open and neutral character of the internet;
Comments:

Amendment 14 +++

Amendement 14 Paragraph 1 a (new) Petra Kammerevert, Matthias Groote +++
	1a. Fordert dazu auf, den Begriff Netzneutralität als grundsätzliche Gleichbehandlung aller Datenpakete unabhängig von Inhalt, Dienst, Anwendung, Herkunft oder Ziel zu definieren. Mobilfunk und Festnetz sind dabei gleich zu behandeln, sofern nicht zwingende technische Gründe ein unterschiedliches Netzwerkmanagement rechtfertigen. Eine Inhaltekontrolle durch Netzbetreiber darf nicht erfolgen;
Comments: Our translation: Calls on it to define the term net neutrality as a fundamental equality of all data packets regardless of content, service, application, source or destination. Mobile and fixed network are to be treated equally, unless there are compelling technical reasons a different network management. A content control by network operators may not take place.

Amendment 15 +

Amendement 15 Paragraph 1 b (new) Petra Kammerevert, Matthias Groote +
	1b. Sachlicher Grund für eine Ungleichbehandlung kann die Notwendigkeit eines Netzwerkmanagements sein, sofern die Ungleichbehandlung dazu dient, die Funktionsfähigkeit und Stabilität der Netze zu sichern. Die Qualitätssicherheit bei der Übertragung zeitkritischer Dienste darf kein Argument zur Aushebelung des "Best-effort"-Prinzips sein;
Translation: An objective reason for unequal treatment can be the necessity of network management if the unequal treatment is used to ensure proper function and stability of the network. Ensuring quality for the transmission of time-critical services must not be an argument to anulate the "best effort" principle.

Amendment 16 +

Amendement 16 Paragraph 1 c (new) Petra Kammerevert, Matthias Groote +
	1c. Empfiehlt, umfassende Informations- und Transparenzverpflichtungen der Netzbetreiber gegenüber allen Marktbeteiligten (insbesondere Diensteanbietern und Endkunden) festzulegen, um damit das Vorliegen notwendiger Informationen zur Beurteilung der Notwendigkeit von Maßnahmen des Netzwerkmanagements oder anderer Eingriffe in die Datenübertragung sicherzustellen;
Comments: Bad translation: Recommends that comprehensive information and transparency obligations, the network operator to all market participants (in particular service providers and end users) to set in order to ensure the existence of necessary information to assess the need for measures of network management or other interventions in the data transmission;

Amendment 17 ++

Amendement 17 Paragraph 1 d (new) Petra Kammerevert, Matthias Groote ++
	1d. Empfiehlt darüber hinaus, angemessene Mindestqualitätsstandards für die Durchleitung von Datenpaketen festzulegen, um eine ausreichende "Best-Effort"-Qualität im Internet zu sichern, um Diensteanbieter sowie Endkunden zu schützen und um einen fairen Wettbewerb zu gewährleisten;
Comments: Also recommends to establish appropriate minimum quality standards for the transmission of data packets to ensure a sufficient "best effort" quality of the Internet in order to protect service providers and consumers and ensure fair competition;

Amendment 18 ++

Amendement 18 Paragraph 2 Marietje Schaake ++
2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;	deleted
Comments:

Amendment 19 +++

Amendement 19 Paragraph 2 Petra Kammerevert, Matthias Groote ++
2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;	2. Empfiehlt den Mitgliedstaaten und der Kommission, Netzneutralität als Regulierungsziel gesetzlich festzuschreiben. Sie soll der Förderung der Vielfalt von Inhalten, Diensten und Diensteanbietern dienen und das Verlangsamen, Benachteiligen oder Blockieren von Inhalten, Diensten oder Diensteanbietern ohne hinreichenden sachlichen Grund verhindern;
Comments: Good amendments, particularly in conjunction with amendment 14 which provides a definition of Net neutrality. Bad translation: Recommends that Member States and the Commission, enshrine net neutrality into law as a regulatory target. It seeks to promote the diversity of content, services and service providers and prevent the slowing down, discrimination against or blocking of content, services or service providers without sufficient factual basis;

Amendment 20 +

Amendement 20 Paragraph 2 Angelika Niebler +
2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;	2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality for the time being; welcomes the Commission's intention to publish by the end of 2011 the evidence emerging from BEREC's investigations, including any instance of blocking or throttling certain types of traffic, practical obstacles regarding change of operator and the discrepancy between advertised and actual delivery speeds occurring in Member States; considers regulatory intervention an appropriate and possible remedy should this investigation show that the principles of net neutrality and fair competition are endangered;
Comments:

Amendments 21 – 30

Amendment 21

Amendement 21 Paragraph 2 Catherine Trautmann
2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;	2. Notes that based on the present analysis, in particular with regards to the mobile market, there is a need to provide EU-wide guidelines to properly and consistently enforce the provisions of the Telecoms package on net neutrality;
Comments:

Amendment 22

Amendement 22 Paragraph 2 Jean-Pierre Audy, Gaston Franco +
2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;	2. Notes that based on the present Commission’s analysis there seems to be no clear need at this stage for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality on the European level; emphasises, however, that there is a potential for anti-competitive and discriminatory behaviour in traffic management and that therefore the European legislator should do its utmost to prevent any violation of net neutrality;
Comments:

Amendment 23

Amendement 23 Paragraph 2 Ivo Belet
2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;	2. Notes that based on the present Commission's analysis there seems to be no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality at European level at this stage; however looks forward to the results of the Commission's ongoing investigations at discriminatory practices;
Comments: Falsely suggests that there is no clear evidence of Net neutrality violations, which is contradicted by anecdotal evidence. See RespectMyNet.eu.

Amendment 24 +++

Amendement 24 Paragraph 2 Philippe Lamberts +++
2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;	2. Notes, however, that based on the present analysis there is evidence, particularly in the mobile market, of a need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;
Comments:

Amendment 25

Amendement 25 Paragraph 2 Jens Rohde, Lena Ek
2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;	2. Notes that based on the present analysis there is currently no clear need for additional regulatory intervention on net neutrality;
Comments:

Amendment 26 +

Amendement 26 Paragraph 3 a (new) Jens Rohde, Lena Ek +
	3a. Urges BEREC in cooperation with Member States to closely monitor the development of ISPs traffic management, in particular related to blocking and throttling of or excessive pricing for VoIP and file sharing as it is practices in these areas that have given rise to complaints of unreasonable and anti-competitive discriminatory traffic management;
Comments:

Amendment 27

Amendement 27 Paragraph 3 a (new) András Gyürk
	3a. Underlines the importance of BEREC assessing and sharing best practice solutions concerning net neutrality with Member States;
Comments:

Amendment 28

Amendement 28 Paragraph 4 Niki Tzavela
4. Calls on the Member States to ensure consistency in the approach on net neutrality and the effective implementation of the revised EU telecoms package;	4. Calls on the European Commission in coordination with the Member States, to ensure consistency in the approach on net neutrality and to cooperate effectively towards the implementation of the revised EU telecoms package;
Comments:

Amendment 29

Amendement 29 Paragraph 4 Catherine Trautmann
4. Calls on the Member States to ensure consistency in the approach on net neutrality and the effective implementation of the revised EU telecoms package;	4. Calls on the Commission, the Member States and BEREC to ensure consistency in the approach on net neutrality and the fair and effective implementation of the revised EU telecoms package;
Comments:

Amendment 30

Amendement 30 Paragraph 5 Lambert van Nistelrooij
5. Emphasizes that any solution proposed on the issue of net neutrality should ensure a common European approach;	5. Emphasizes that any solution proposed on the issue of net neutrality should ensure a common Eu ropean approach; and should be informed by Commission impact assessments that scrutinize the effects of net neutrality regulations on the business models of telecom industries, in certain member states that have proposed or implemented such regulations;
Comments:

Amendments 31 – 40

Amendment 31

Amendement 31 Paragraph 5 Ioannis A. Tsoukalas
5. Emphasizes that any solution proposed on the issue of net neutrality should ensure a common European approach;	5. Emphasizes that any solution proposed on the issue of net neutrality can be effective only through a common European approach;
Comments:

Amendment 32

Amendement 32 Paragraph 5 Petra Kammerevert, Matthias Groote
5. Emphasizes that any solution proposed on the issue of net neutrality should ensure a common European approach;	5. Emphasizes that any solution proposed on the issue of net neutrality should ensure a coordinated European approach;
Comments:

Amendment 33 +

Amendement 33 Paragraph 6 a (new) Ioan Enciu +
	6a. Suggests that Member States initiate communication actions through effective channels so that the central issues regarding net neutrality are brought to the attention of the citizens in order for them to have better knowledge of their rights and to be able to report any eventual abuses;
Comments:

Amendment 34 ++

Amendement 34 Paragraph 6 a (new) Catherine Trautmann ++
	6a. States that the development of “specialized services” with guaranteed quality (IPT etc.) should not result in a degradation of “best-effort” internet services, or in reducing the openness of the Internet - thus limiting innovation and freedom of expression;
Comments:

Amendment 35 -

Amendement 35 Paragraph 7 Catherine Trautmann -
7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for transparency in traffic management;	7. Recognises that in order to meet quality of service requirements and subject to NRAs scrutiny, operators may use procedures to measure and shape Internet traffic on a network link so as to avoid filling the link to capacity or overfilling the link, which would result in network congestion;
Comments: Very specific, and to be acceptable should include safeguard in favor of equal treatment, or objective non-discriminatory criteria regarding traffic shaping.

Amendment 36

Amendement 36 Paragraph 7 Jens Rohde, Lena Ek
7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for transparency in traffic management;	7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for transparency in traffic management; Urges the competent national regulatory authorities to ensure that traffic management interventions do not involve anti-competitive discrimination and to make full use of their powers under the Universal Service Directive to impose, if necessary, minimum QoS standards on an SMP operator;
Comments:

Amendment 37 --

Amendement 37 Paragraph 7 Ioannis A. Tsoukalas --
7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for transparency in traffic management;	7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion, especially in the case of mobile broadband networks, but calls for transparency in traffic management and better information for end-users and encourages the self-regulation of network providers through the application of standardized management practices;
Comments: Falsely suggests that transparency and self-regulation can effectively protect Net neutrality.

Amendment 38 +

Amendement 38 Paragraph 7 Angelika Niebler +
7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for transparency in traffic management;	7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for transparency in traffic management; stresses that the user, instead of the internet service provider, must be able to choose the speed and volume of downloads and services;
Comments:

Amendment 39

Amendement 39 Paragraph 7 Niki Tzavela
7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for transparency in traffic management;	7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for transparency in traffic management and efforts to ensure that advertised broadband speeds accurately reflect actual users' experiences;
Comments:

Amendment 40 -

Amendement 40 Paragraph 7 Lambert van Nistelrooij -
7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for transparency in traffic management;	7. Recognises that reasonable traffic management is required to ensure that the end user's connectivity is not disrupted by network congestion but calls for ongoing innovation and transparency in traffic management;
Comments:

Amendments 41 – 50

Amendment 41 +

Amendement 41 Paragraph 7 a (new) Ivo Belet +
	7a. Stresses that the principles of non-discrimination, equal treatment and transparency are of paramount importance to ensure an unbiased access to content for citizens; especially in the light of vertical integration in the telecoms sector;
Comments: Good amendment, bu it should also mention unbiased "publication", besides mere "access".

Amendment 42 +

Amendement 42 Paragraph 8 Sabine Verheyen +
8. Draws the attention to potential challenges when departing from network neutrality including anticompetitive behaviour, blockage of innovation, restriction on freedom of expression lack of consumer awareness and infringement of privacy and that the lack of net neutrality hurts both businesses, consumers and society as whole;	8. Draws the attention to serious challenges when departing from network neutrality including anticompetitive behaviour, blockage of innovation, restriction on freedom of expression and on media pluralism, lack of consumer awareness and infringement of privacy which will be detrimental to both businesses, consumers and the democratic society as a whole;
Comments:

Amendment 43 +

Amendement 43 Paragraph 8 Catherine Trautmann +
8. Draws the attention to potential challenges when departing from network neutrality including anticompetitive behaviour, blockage of innovation, restriction on freedom of expression lack of consumer awareness and infringement of privacy and that the lack of net neutrality hurts both businesses, consumers and society as whole;	8. Draws the attention to the risks of departing from network neutrality including anticompetitive behaviour, blockage of innovation, restriction on freedom of expression lack of consumer awareness and infringement of privacy and that the lack of net neutrality hurts both businesses, consumers and society as whole;
Comments:

Amendment 44

Amendement 44 Paragraph 8 Philippe Lamberts
8. Draws the attention to potential challenges when departing from network neutrality including anticompetitive behaviour, blockage of innovation, restriction on freedom of expression lack of consumer awareness and infringement of privacy and that the lack of net neutrality hurts both businesses, consumers and society as whole;	8. Draws the attention to potential dangers when departing from network neutrality including anticompetitive behaviour, blockage of innovation, restriction on freedom of expression lack of consumer awareness and infringement of privacy and that the lack of net neutrality hurts both businesses, consumers and society as whole;
Comments:

Amendment 45 +

Amendement 45 Paragraph 8 a (new) Angelika Niebler +
	8a. Notes the existence of concerns emerging from consumers in regard to the discrepancy between advertised and actual delivery speeds from an Internet connection; calls in this respect on the Member States to coherently enforce the ban on misleading advertising;
Comments:

Amendment 46 +

Amendement 46 Paragraph 9 Philippe Lamberts +
9. Reminds that the EU regulatory framework aims at promoting effective competition and therefore any measure in the area of net neutrality should in addition to existing competition law provide tools to deal with any anti-competitive practices that may emerge as well as lead to investments and facilitate new innovative business models;	9. Reminds that the EU regulatory framework aims at promoting freedom of expression and effective competition and therefore any measure in the area of net neutrality should in addition to existing competition law provide the necessary tools to deal with any anti-competitive practices that may emerge;
Comments:

Amendment 47

Amendement 47 Paragraph 9 a (new) Angelika Niebler
	9a. Recognises the need for creating ways of enhancing citizens' trust and confidence in the online environment; calls therefore on the Commission and Member States to further develop educational programmes aiming at raising consumers' ICT skills and at reducing digital exclusion;
Comments:

Amendment 48 +

Amendement 48 Paragraph 9 a (new) Catherine Trautmann +
	9a. Calls on the Commission, together with BEREC, to examine further whether certain practices, including traffic management or interconnection agreements, may trigger anticompetitive behaviour or excessive degradation of quality, as well as the discrepancy between advertised and actual delivery speeds for access to the Internet, and report to the European Parliament and the Council thereon;
Comments:

Amendment 49 +

Amendement 49 Paragraph 9 b (new) Catherine Trautmann +
	9b. Draws the attention to the issue of "device neutrality" which should be the subject of an analysis by the Commission;
Comments:

Amendment 50 +

Amendement 50 Paragraph 10 Catherine Trautmann +
10. Considers transparency, quality of service and ease of switching as necessary conditions of net neutrality in assuring the end-users of freedom of choice and requests;	10. Considers transparency, quality of service and ease of switching as fundamental yet non-exhaustive components of net neutrality;
Comments:

Amendments 51 – 60

Amendment 51 +

Amendement 51 Paragraph 10 Philippe Lamberts
10. Considers transparency, quality of service and ease of switching as necessary conditions of net neutrality in assuring the end-users of freedom of choice and requests;	10. Considers transparency in relation to exceptional non-neutral traffic management, consistent quality of service benchmarks and ease of switching as necessary complementary measures for net neutrality in order to assure the end-users of freedom of choice;
Comments:

Amendment 52 ++

Amendement 52 Paragraph 10 Marietje Schaake ++
10. Considers transparency, quality of service and ease of switching as necessary conditions of net neutrality in assuring the end-users of freedom of choice and requests;	10. Considers transparency, quality of service and ease of switching as necessary conditions of net neutrality in assuring the end-users of freedom of choice and requests, as long as these conditions are effective in practice and offer actual net neutrality;
Comments:

Amendment 53

Amendement 53 Paragraph 10 Fiona Hall
10. Considers transparency, quality of service and ease of switching as necessary conditions of net neutrality in assuring the end-users of freedom of choice and requests;	10. Considers that effective competition in electronic communications combined with transparency on quality of service and ease of switching are necessary conditions for net neutrality, assuring end-users of freedom of choice and requests;
Comments:

Amendment 54

Amendement 54 Paragraph 10 Jens Rohde, Lena Ek
10. Considers transparency, quality of service and ease of switching as necessary conditions of net neutrality in assuring the end-users of freedom of choice and requests;	10. Considers that effective competition in electronic communications combined with transparency on quality of service and ease of switching as necessary conditions of net neutrality in assuring the end-users of freedom of choice and requests;
Comments:

Amendment 55

Amendement 55 Paragraph 10 Patrizia Toia
10. Considers transparency, quality of service and ease of switching as necessary conditions of net neutrality in assuring the end-users of freedom of choice and requests;	10. Considers that competition, transparency on quality of service and ease of switching are among the minimum necessary conditions for net neutrality, assuring end-users of freedom of choice and requests;
Comments:

Amendment 56 +

Amendement 56 Paragraph 10 a (new) Ioannis A. Tsoukalas +
	10a. Considers the principle of net neutrality as a significant prerequisite for enabling an innovative internet ecosystem and for securing a level playing field at the service of European citizens and entrepreneurs;
Comments:

Amendment 57 +

Amendement 57 Paragraph 10 a (new) Takis Hadjigeorgiou +
	10a.Calls on the Commission to invite consumer representatives and civil society to participate actively and equally with industry representatives in the discussions regarding the future of the Internet in the EU;
Comments:

Amendment 58 --

Amendement 58 Paragraph 10 a (new) Ivo Belet --
	10a. Believes a "pay-for-priorisation-system" should go hand in hand with the introduction of sufficiently high minimum quality of service requirements, so as to avoid a new digital divide;
Comments: Dangerous redaction. Ill-defined term regarding “pay-for-priorisation”, which is incompatible with a neutral Internet. If the term refers to “managed services”, then better amendments in this regard. Any reference to managed services should draw a clear distinction with the Internet. That being said, the overall goal to have strong minimum QoS requirements is of course laudable.

Amendment 59 ++

Amendement 59 Paragraph 10 b (new) Takis Hadjigeorgiou ++
	10b. Draws attention to net neutrality currently being threatened by discriminatory practices by network operators who aim to  maximise their revenues through their prioritisation of content and the conclusion of exclusive agreements with content providers, thus jeopardising the right of consumers to have access to information and content of their choice;
Comments:

Amendment 60

Amendement 60 Paragraph 10 c (new) Takis Hadjigeorgiou
	10c. Draws attention to switching between operators being not often easy, either because of the significant costs involved such as contract cancellation fees, costs related to setting up the new network and installation costs as well as the ones related to informing third parties of the new contract information or due to contractual restrictions as in the case of bundled services;
Comments:

Amendments 61 – 70

Amendment 61

Amendement 61 Paragraph 10 d (new) Takis Hadjigeorgiou
	10d. Considers that in the framework of the single market and increased competition service providers have increased their prices to the detriment of consumer protection;
Comments:

Amendment 62 +

Amendement 62 Paragraph 11 Philippe Lamberts +
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission for additional guidance on net neutrality to protect freedom of expression on the Internet as well as to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers; and, based on the work of BEREC, to provide the European Parliament with data on current traffic management practices, the interconnection market and alleged network congestion, looking in particular to whether the latter is related to lack of investment;
Comments:

Amendment 63 +

Amendement 63 Paragraph 11 Jean-Pierre Audy, Gaston Franco +
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance and, if necessary for further regulation on net neutrality to achieve competition and security, foster innovation of the internet, facilitate wide-ranging benefits for citizens, business and public administration uses of the Internet as well as ensure freedom of access to the information, and freedom of expression and freedom of choice for consumers;
Comments:

Amendment 64

Amendement 64 Paragraph 11 Jens Rohde, Lena Ek
11.Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to ensure the enforcement of the EU regulatory framework for communications using all of its available powers and to furthermore assess the need for additional guidance or regulation on net neutrality to achieve effective competition and freedom of choice for consumers;
Comments:

Amendment 65 +++

Amendement 65 Paragraph 11 Petra Kammerevert, Matthias Groote +++
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance and for further regulation on net neutrality to achieve competition, to foster innovation, to ensure media-pluralism, freedom of access to information and freedom of expression as well as freedom of choice for consumers;
Comments:

Amendment 66

Amendement 66 Paragraph 11 Niki Tzavela
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition, foster innovation on the Internet, wide-ranging benefits for citizens, business and public administration uses of the internet; and freedom of choice for consumers;
Comments:

Amendment 67 +

Amendement 67 Paragraph 11 Catherine Trautmann +
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance and if necessary further regulation on net neutrality to achieve innovation, competition and freedom of choice for consumers, as well as freedom of expression;
Comments:

Amendment 68 -

Amendement 68 Paragraph 11 Patrizia Toia -
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to ensure the enforcement of the EU regulatory framework for communications and to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;
Comments:

Amendment 69 -

Amendement 69 Paragraph 11 Fiona Hall -
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to ensure the enforcement of the EU regulatory framework for communications and to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;
Comments:

Amendment 70

Amendement 70 Paragraph 11 Angelika Niebler
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance, and if necessary, for further regulation on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;
Comments:

Amendments 71 – 73

Amendment 71 --

Amendement 71 Paragraph 11 Ioannis A. Tsoukalas --
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality in order to achieve competition, reinforce investments and enable freedom of choice for consumers;
Comments:

Amendment 72

Amendement 72 Paragraph 11 Lambert van Nistelrooij
11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition and freedom of choice for consumers;	11. Asks the Commission to assess the need for additional guidance on net neutrality to achieve competition, freedom of expression and freedom of choice for consumers;
Comments:

Amendment 73 ---

Amendement 73 Paragraph 11 a (new) Ivo Belet ---
	11a. Believes additional measures are necessary to prohibit the blocking of lawful services;
Comments: Dangerous reference to "lawful content", which suggests that operators could legitimately restrict communications without prior judicial decision.