Difference between revisions of "Telecoms Package 2nd Reading ITRE IMCO Net Discrimination"

From La Quadrature du Net
Jump to navigationJump to search
 
(One intermediate revision by one other user not shown)
Line 3: Line 3:
 
== The big picture ==
 
== The big picture ==
  
The table below shows amendment by order of preference for each provision.
+
The table below shows amendments by order of preference for each provision.
  
 
{| border="1"
 
{| border="1"
Line 155: Line 155:
  
 
* <font style="background:#ff1900">[[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_136_.3D.3D_Amendment_137_.3D.3D_Amendment_138_---|Ams. 136=137=138 ---]]</font>, Art. 22.3: Some degradation of service, hindering and slowing of traffic taken by ISPs are '''justified''' (AT&T amendment).
 
* <font style="background:#ff1900">[[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_136_.3D.3D_Amendment_137_.3D.3D_Amendment_138_---|Ams. 136=137=138 ---]]</font>, Art. 22.3: Some degradation of service, hindering and slowing of traffic taken by ISPs are '''justified''' (AT&T amendment).
 +
[[Category:Telecoms_Package]]

Latest revision as of 19:23, 5 February 2010

A major topic at stakes for 2nd reading of the Telecoms Package is lying in some amendments that guarantee a network neutrality, that is an Internet free from any discrimination with regard to content, applications and services that users can access or distribute. Conversely some amendments allows some limitations to net-neutrality that can be taken by providers and authorised by National Regulation Authorities. The point is to limit these restrictions to reasonable measures that do not endanger the basic principle of network neutrality.

The big picture[edit]

The table below shows amendments by order of preference for each provision.

Article 20 - Contracts Article 21 - Transparency and publication of information Article 22 - Quality of service

Am. 125 ++
Am. 127 +
Am. 128 -
Am. 43 -
Am. 126 --

Am. 129 ++
Am. 133 -
Am. 132 -
Am. 130 -
Am. 49 -

Am. 135 +++
Ams. 139 & 141 ++
Am. 142
Am. 140 --
Ams. 136=137=138 --

Related recital 22 & 22a & 22b Related recitals 24 & 24a Related recitals 26 & 26a

Am. 111 +++
Am. 109 +++
Ams. 6=110 ++
Am. 106 +
Am. 107 +
Am. 5 -
Am. 108 --
Am. 105 --

Am. 113 +
Am. 114 ++

Am. 115 +++
Am. 116 ---
Ams. 117=118 ---

Related provisions[edit]

Network neutrality/discrimination is discussed in various points of the Universal Service Directives (2002/22/EC) in the report from Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB:

  • Article 20 defines informations that ISPs should include in contracts with end-users about traffic management policies.
  • Article 21 defines informations that ISPs should send to with end-users when there is a change of traffic management policy.
  • Article 22 defines limits of traffic management policies to ensure a minimum quality of servis (QoS).

Therefore, amendments to Article 22 are the most importants. Also, some recitals can further specify the meaning of theses articles.

Amendments by MEPs[edit]

Some various points of view with regard to network neutrality/discrimination have been put forward in amendments filled by various MEPs.

Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB[edit]

  • Am. 5 -, Recital 22: As a basic principle, end-users decide what they require to send and receive, with the exception that they should be informed about limitations imposed by ISPs, these informations are specified at the option of the ISP.
  • Ams. 6=110 ++, Recital 22a: ISPs should not monitor information transmitted over their networks, responsibility for punitive action or criminal prosecution remains with the relevant law enforcement authorities.
  • Am. 108 --, Recital 22a: Traffic management policies are only subject to competition scrutiny.
  • Am. 43 -, Art. 20.1.b: ISPs should inform end-users in their contracts about any limitations, in accordance with national law, on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services.
  • Am. 128 -, Art. 20.1.b: ISPs should inform end-users in their contracts about any limitations, in accordance with national law, on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services and about traffic management policies and their impact on service quality.
  • Am. 49 -, Art. 21.3: ISPs should inform end-users of any change about any limitations, in accordance with national law, on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services.
  • Am. 130 -, Art. 21.3: ISPs should inform end-users of any change about any limitations, in accordance with national law, on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services and about traffic management policies and their impact on service quality.

Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE[edit]

  • Am. 106 ++, Recital 22: As a basic principle, end-users decide what they require to send and receive, and are informed about ISP's traffic management policies which may require user's consent if such policies endangers privacy or personnal data.
  • Am. 109 +++, Recital 22a: Traffic management policies should be temporary short-term remedies, and be neutral in respect of content and applications, and respect fundamental rights and freedoms of users.
  • Am. 111 +++, Recital 22b: Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection to send and receive content of their own choice, use services and applications of their own choice, and connect hardware and use software of their own choice that does not harm the network. Internet users are entitled to a connection free from discrimination based on type of application, service or content, or based on sender or receiver address.
  • Am. 113 +, Recital 24: Up-to-date information of end-users by ISPs about traffic management policies.
  • Am. 114 ++, Recital 24a: Autorities can take appropriate measures when ISPs do not disclose very precisely their traffic management policies or when traffic management policy does not respect the rights of users to access the content, applications and services of their choice.
  • Am. 115 +++, Recital 6: Prioritisation or limitation of traffic must be able to be justified by a valid technical reason, such as temporary short-term remedies put in place so as to smooth traffic in cases of acute network congestion or in response to malicious activity threatening network security or end-user security, and must not result in the user not being able to access content, services and applications. A minimum quality of service should ensure that users are able to access all content, services and applications of their choice without being hinde#FF6B6B, limited or blocked by the traffic management policies of the network operator.
  • Am. 125 ++, Art. 20.1.b: ISPs should inform end-users in their contracts about traffic management policies so that they are enable to choose whether to purchase the service, and adjust their behaviour, deactivate the service, alter the service criteria or switch networks.
  • Am. 129 ++, Art. 21.1: ISPs should inform end-users about any change about traffic management policies, the information should be very precise (what circumstances traffic management policies are implemented, and the criteria and rules implemented by the operator for managing traffic, including the thresholds that will trigger changes in the users' experience of the services).
  • Am. 135 +++, Art. 22.1: Autorities can take appropriate measures when ISPs do not disclose their traffic management policies or when traffic management policy does not respect the rights of users to access the content, applications and services of their choice; additionally they should ensure that there is a facility in place by which users can monitor and identify any problems created by traffic management policies in cases where disputes may arise.

Bernadette VERGNAUD, PSE, FR[edit]

  • Am. 107 +, Recital 22: As a basic principle, end-users decide what they require to send and receive, and are informed about ISP's traffic management policies.
  • Am. 127 +, Art. 20.1.b: ISPs should inform end-users in their contracts about traffic management policies.
  • Am. 133 -, Art. 21.3: ISPs should inform end-users about any relevant change about traffic management policies.
  • Ams. 139 & 141 ++, Arts. 22.3a & 22.3b: Appropriate and reasonable traffic management policies can be taken by ISPs if they are not anti-competitive or do not give preferential treatment to the services or applications of the network operators or their commercial partners over the services and applications of other providers.

Heide RÜHLE, Verts/ALE, DE[edit]

  • Am. 107 +, Recital 22: As a basic principle, end-users decide what they require to send and receive, and are informed about ISP's traffic management policies.
  • Am. 127 +, Art. 20.1.b: ISPs should inform end-users in their contracts about traffic management policies.
  • Am. 133 -, Art. 21.3: ISPs should inform end-users about any relevant change about traffic management policies.
  • Ams. 139 & 141 ++, Arts. 22.3a & 22.3b: Appropriate and reasonable traffic management policies can be taken by ISPs if they are not anti-competitive or do not give preferential treatment to the services or applications of the network operators or their commercial partners over the services and applications of other providers.
  • Am. 142, Art 22.3c: Traffic management policies are taken to assure minimum QoS.

Cristian Silviu BUŞOI, ALDE, RO[edit]

  • Am. 107 +, Recital 22: As a basic principle, end-users decide what they require to send and receive, and are informed about ISP's traffic management policies.
  • Ams. 139 & 140 --, Art. 22.3a & 22.3b: Appropriate and reasonable traffic management policies can be taken by ISPs if they are not anti-competitive or do not hinder the competitive development of the information society.

Jacques TOUBON, PPE-DE, FR[edit]

  • Am. 110 ++, Recital 22a: ISPs should not monitor information transmitted over their networks, responsibility for punitive action or criminal prosecution remains with the relevant law enforcement authorities.
  • Am. 116 ---, Recital 26: Some degradation of service, usage limitations and slowing of traffic taken by ISPs are justified (AT&T amendment).
  • Am. 126 --, Art. 20.1.b: ISPs should inform end-users in their contracts about any relevant limitations imposed by the undertaking, in accordance with national law, on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services.
  • Am. 132 -, Art. 21.3: ISPs should inform end-users about any relevant change about traffic management policies.

Zita PLEŠTINSKÁ, PPE-DE, SK, Andreas SCHWAB, PPE-DE, DE[edit]

  • Ams. 117=118 ---, Recital 26a: Reasonable network management policies can include everything, provided that competitive development of the information society is not hindered (AT&T amendment).
  • Ams. 136=137=138 ---, Art. 22.3: Some degradation of service, hindering and slowing of traffic taken by ISPs are justified (AT&T amendment).

Erika MANN, PSE, DE, Edit HERCZOG, PSE, HU[edit]

  • Ams. 136=137=138 ---, Art. 22.3: Some degradation of service, hindering and slowing of traffic taken by ISPs are justified (AT&T amendment).

Syed KAMMALL, PPE-DE, UK[edit]

  • Am. 105 --, Recital 22: ISPs should inform end-users about any relevant limitations imposed on the use of electronic communications services.
  • Ams. 136=137=138 ---, Art. 22.3: Some degradation of service, hindering and slowing of traffic taken by ISPs are justified (AT&T amendment).