Difference between revisions of "Portal:Net Neutrality/Essential points"

From La Quadrature du Net
Jump to navigationJump to search
(Why is the Net Neutrality in danger?)
 
(3 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
=== Pourquoi a-t-on besoin de la « Neutralité du Net » ? ===
+
=== Why do we need Net Neutrality? ===
Ce principe de Neutralité du Net tel qu'on le connaît aujourd'hui est fondamental pour la protection de valeurs essentielles de nos sociétés :  
+
This principle of Net Neutrality is fundamental for the protection of essential values of our societies:
  
; La libre concurrence.
+
; Competition
  
Si un fournisseur d'accès porte atteinte à la Neutralité du Net, il peut très facilement favoriser ses services par rapport à ceux de ses concurrents. Par exemple, en France, les 3 opérateurs ''interdisent'' aux clients de leur « internet mobile » d'utiliser des logiciels de voix sur IP (tels que Skype), les forçant ainsi à payer leurs communications nationales et internationales aux tarifs (élevés) de leurs réseaux. Encore récemment, aucun opérateur ne proposait d'alternative à cette situation. Ces pratiques, fondamentalement anti-concurrentielles, sont nuisibles pour le consommateur, la croissance économique et l'innovation.
+
An Internet provider can easily favour their services over their competitors' if they are allowed to do things that go against the concept of Net Neutrality. In France for example, three operators "forbid" their mobile internet customers to use Voice over IP software (VoIP, e.g. Skype), forcing them to pay their national and international communications at the (higher) rates offered by their network. These anti-competitive practices are harmful to consumers, economic growth and innovation.
  
; L'innovation.
+
; Innovation
  
Depuis sa création, Internet repose sur et se développe grâce à ses utilisateurs. « Deux gus dans un garage » (ou dans une chambre d'étudiants) ont développé des myriades de projets et de start-ups microscopiques, devenus depuis incontournables. Il en va ainsi de Google, Wikipedia, Skype, eBay, BitTorrent, Twitter et de bien d'autres éléments essentiels d'Internet, utilisés dans le monde entier. Cette « innovation sans permis » est saine et stimulante. Elle est bénéfique à toute l'économie. Que se passerait-il alors si le prochain acteur innovant devait demander à tous les opérateurs la permission d'utiliser leurs réseaux, ou payer pour obtenir une priorité normale afin d'éviter des lenteurs fatales à sa création ? Les opérateurs voient dans cette question l'opportunité de centraliser et contrôler Internet, tout en augmentant leurs profits.
+
Net Neutrality ensures that new entrants into the digital economy find a relatively level playing-field, at least with regard to access to broadband networks. Without Net Neutrality, broadband operators can charge Internet service providers in order to "prioritise" access to them. The initial over-head of start-ups would therefore be much more significant.  
 +
Since its creation the Internet has develops thanks "Some guys in a garage somewhere" that developed myriads of projects and tiny start-ups, amongst other, Google, Wikipedia, Skype, eBay, BitTorrent, Twitter... This "innovation without licence" is healthy and provivides significant stimulus to the economy.  
  
; Libertés et droits fondamentaux
+
; Liberties and fundamental rights
  
L'Article 11 de la Déclaration des droits de l'Homme et du citoyen de 1789 proclame : « La libre communication des pensées et des opinions est un des droits les plus précieux de l’Homme : tout Citoyen peut donc parler, écrire, imprimer librement, sauf à répondre de l’abus de cette liberté, dans les cas déterminés par la Loi. ».  
+
The article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 proclaims: "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."
  
Le Conseil Constitutionnel, confirmant ce que le Parlement européen a déjà exprimé à maintes reprises, a enrichi l'article en déclarant :
+
The French Constitutional Council, confirming what the European Parliament has already expressed, enriched the article by declaring:
 +
"As is means of communication and in consideration of the development generalized by communication's services to the online public as well as to the importance taken by these services for the participation in the democratic life and the expression of the ideas and the opinions, this right involves the freedom to reach these services."
  
« En l'état actuel des moyens de communication et eu égard au développement généralisé des services de communication au public en ligne ainsi qu'à l'importance prise par ces services pour la participation à la vie démocratique et l'expression des idées et des opinions, ce droit implique la liberté d'accéder à ces services. »
+
Today, Internet is a essential tool of exercise of the freedom of expression and communication for the smooth running of our democracies.
 +
Blogs, microblogs, social networks and instant messagings are so many new methods to participate in the public debate. In a democracy, only a judge must be able to restrict the citizens' fundamental liberties such the freedom of expression. What will it happen if the control of these new tools would be offered to companies?
  
Aujourd'hui, Internet est un outil d'exercice de la liberté d'expression et de communication essentiel pour le bon fonctionnement de nos démocraties.
+
=== Why is Net Neutrality in danger? ===  
Blogs, microblogs, réseaux sociaux et messageries instantanées sont autant de nouvelles méthodes de participer au débat public. Dans une démocratie, seul un juge doit pouvoir restreindre les libertés fondamentales des citoyens aussi importantes que la liberté d'expression. Que se passera-t-il si le contrôle de ces nouveaux outils était offert aux entreprises ?
+
The Internet is developing and growing constantly, making bigger and bigger demands on networks. Until now, when networks were saturated, network operators invested in more bandwidth and increased the power of the global infrastructure. While users paid for access to the internet, broadband operators did not charge internet service providers (ISP, those entitites providing services such as google, duckduckgo, yahoo, skype, dropbox, linphone,...). They are now developing a business model that would allow them to charge users (individuals at home, companies that require access to the internet) and ISPs but promising greater speed for certain services. This discrimination would break Net Neutrality rules. This would give network operators much more power to discriminate on Internet communications. Although telecom operators keep arguing that technically, they need to be able to favour some internet packages (data, communication) over other, and used to argument to pursuade the European Parliament (unsuccessfully), it is not technically true if they were willing to reinvest their profits in more infrastructure.  
 
 
=== Pourquoi la neutralité du net est-elle en danger ? ===
 
Internet se développe sans arrêt. Jusqu'à présent, lorsque les réseaux des opérateurs étaient saturés, ils investissaient dans plus de bande passante et augmentaient la puissance de l'infrastructure globale que nous appelons Internet. Avec de nouvelles possibilités de pratiques anti-concurrentielles lucratives, les opérateurs pourraient se tourner vers un nouveau ''business model'' : investir dans le contrôle de ce qui circule sur leurs réseaux, plutôt que d'investir dans de meilleurs réseaux. Ce modèle créerait des conditions se justifiant elles-mêmes parfaitement pour ces politiques : « Internet est devenu trop lent, nous sommes par conséquent obligés de contrôler et d'attribuer des priorités sur le contenu, les services et applications dont les propriétaires sont prêts à payer plus d'argent. » De tels arguments, accompagnés du mirage de la « fin d'Internet », ont été avancés devant le Parlement européen pour abandonner la Neutralité du Net, mais ne tiennent pas devant les réalités techniques. Une bande passante moins onéreuse et une gestion raisonnée du réseau permettent au réseau de grandir sur la base d'investissements structurels.
 
  
 
<noinclude>
 
<noinclude>
 
[[Category:Net_Neutrality]]
 
[[Category:Net_Neutrality]]
 
</noinclude>
 
</noinclude>

Latest revision as of 19:31, 14 April 2014

Why do we need Net Neutrality?[edit]

This principle of Net Neutrality is fundamental for the protection of essential values of our societies:

Competition

An Internet provider can easily favour their services over their competitors' if they are allowed to do things that go against the concept of Net Neutrality. In France for example, three operators "forbid" their mobile internet customers to use Voice over IP software (VoIP, e.g. Skype), forcing them to pay their national and international communications at the (higher) rates offered by their network. These anti-competitive practices are harmful to consumers, economic growth and innovation.

Innovation

Net Neutrality ensures that new entrants into the digital economy find a relatively level playing-field, at least with regard to access to broadband networks. Without Net Neutrality, broadband operators can charge Internet service providers in order to "prioritise" access to them. The initial over-head of start-ups would therefore be much more significant. Since its creation the Internet has develops thanks "Some guys in a garage somewhere" that developed myriads of projects and tiny start-ups, amongst other, Google, Wikipedia, Skype, eBay, BitTorrent, Twitter... This "innovation without licence" is healthy and provivides significant stimulus to the economy.

Liberties and fundamental rights

The article 11 of the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen of 1789 proclaims: "The free communication of ideas and opinions is one of the most precious of the rights of man. Every citizen may, accordingly, speak, write, and print with freedom, but shall be responsible for such abuses of this freedom as shall be defined by law."

The French Constitutional Council, confirming what the European Parliament has already expressed, enriched the article by declaring: "As is means of communication and in consideration of the development generalized by communication's services to the online public as well as to the importance taken by these services for the participation in the democratic life and the expression of the ideas and the opinions, this right involves the freedom to reach these services."

Today, Internet is a essential tool of exercise of the freedom of expression and communication for the smooth running of our democracies. Blogs, microblogs, social networks and instant messagings are so many new methods to participate in the public debate. In a democracy, only a judge must be able to restrict the citizens' fundamental liberties such the freedom of expression. What will it happen if the control of these new tools would be offered to companies?

Why is Net Neutrality in danger?[edit]

The Internet is developing and growing constantly, making bigger and bigger demands on networks. Until now, when networks were saturated, network operators invested in more bandwidth and increased the power of the global infrastructure. While users paid for access to the internet, broadband operators did not charge internet service providers (ISP, those entitites providing services such as google, duckduckgo, yahoo, skype, dropbox, linphone,...). They are now developing a business model that would allow them to charge users (individuals at home, companies that require access to the internet) and ISPs but promising greater speed for certain services. This discrimination would break Net Neutrality rules. This would give network operators much more power to discriminate on Internet communications. Although telecom operators keep arguing that technically, they need to be able to favour some internet packages (data, communication) over other, and used to argument to pursuade the European Parliament (unsuccessfully), it is not technically true if they were willing to reinvest their profits in more infrastructure.