Telecoms Package 2nd Reading ITRE IMCO Voting List : Différence entre versions
(→COD/2007/0247 - Trautmann report (framework, access, authorisation) - ITRE committee) |
(→COD/2007/0248 - Harbour report (universal service, ePrivacy) - IMCO committee) |
||
Ligne 68 : | Ligne 68 : | ||
! Amending !! Amended !! Topic !! Am. # !! Source !! Advice !! Comment | ! Amending !! Amended !! Topic !! Am. # !! Source !! Advice !! Comment | ||
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 22 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_5_-| 5 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| - || Provides some safeguards against network discrimination. But type of limitation should not be specified ''at the option of the provider'', since it would hinder transparency imposed on providers. Moreover this amendment gives a reason to delete the word ''lawful'' in Amendment 45 of ITRE draft report (Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point fa) as suggested. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 22a || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_6| 6 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| ++ || Restates the ''mere-conduct'' principle, which is at the basis of network neutrality. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 26 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_9_0| 9 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || 0 || Mixes Recital 26 of the Council's Common Position and recital 14d of the European Parliament's first reading. It doesn't seem dangerous with regard to network discrimination. A similar amendment from AT&T was proposing to allow ''unjustified degradation of service, usage restrictions and/or limitations of traffic'', which would have been very dangerous. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 39 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_17| 17 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| -- || This amendment doesn't change anything in the important provisions of this recital, namely ''Furthermore, a mechanism could be established for the purpose of enabling appropriate cooperation on issues relating to the promotion of lawful content. Any cooperation procedures agreed pursuant to such a mechanism should, however, not allow for the systematic surveillance of internet usage''. The cooperation to promote lawful content is known to be used as a ground for "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) and has nothing to do in the Universal Service Directive, since the rapporteur said that copyright enforcement has nothing to do in this directive. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 39a || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_18_.2B| 18 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| + || Principles established by Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC adds some safeguards for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, while it does '''not''' prevent a national administrative authority to enforce a "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) as currently drafted by French government. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 39b || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_19_.2B| 19 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| + || Restates the principle of network neutrality. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 39d || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_21_0| 21 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || 0 || This amendment restores, in a slightly modified version, Recital 27a adopted by European Parliament in its first reading. But this recital was presented by EDPS as an alternative to the deletion of a dangerous recital previously adopted in IMCO. Therefore, it can be adopted or rejected. |
|- | |- | ||
− | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13.b || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.20.1.b] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_43_-| 43 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| - || '''''Article 26;''''' |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.21.3] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_49_-| 49 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| - || connecting the call |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.22.3.1a] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_53_0| 53 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || 0 || This amendment restores partially Article 22 − paragraph 3 as adopted by European Parliament in its first reading, which has raised some concerns about the imposition of DRM. But the dangerous part of this paragraph has already be softened by the Council, replacing the reference to ''guidelines to enable the access or distribution of lawful content or applications'' by ''setting minimum quality of service requirements''. Therefore, this amendment can be adopted or rejected. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.21 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.32a] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_72| 72 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| +++ || '''''Access to content, services and applications''''' |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.23 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.34.1] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_74_.2B| 74 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| + || '''''and the authorities.''''' |
|- | |- | ||
− | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.2.6 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_ePrivacy_Council_Common_Position ePrivacy Art.6] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_85| 85 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| -- || and Article 15(1). |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Annex I.B.b || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_103_0| 103 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || 0 || '''''persons to content unsuitable for them.''''' |
|- | |- | ||
− | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour]|| | + | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour Rec. 22] || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_106| 106 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE |GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| ++ || Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification. |
|- | |- | ||
− | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour]|| | + | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour Rec. 22] || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_107_.2B| 107 ]] || [[MEPs_Verts |Verts/ALE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| + || * The first part of the amendment is preserving unrestricted access to content/services/applications, but the last part recalls that there can be limitations. Therefore this amendment is not very good, but can be accepted if limitations are clearly restricted in other amendments like 139/141. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 22a || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_109| 109 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE|GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| +++ || More or less our definition of acceptable network management policies. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 22 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_110| 110 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| ++ || French translation of amendment 6 of Harbour |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 22b || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_111| 111 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE|GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| +++ || More or less our definition of net neutrality. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 24 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_113_.2B| 113 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE|GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| + || This is an exact copy of Amendment 7, tabled by the Rapporteur, with the insertion of '''''"and their traffic management policies"'''''. It is noteworthy the Rapporteur overwrites his own amendment 7 with amendment 112. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour]|| | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour Rec. 24a] || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_114| 114 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE |GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| ++ || Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification. |
|- | |- | ||
− | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour]|| | + | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour Rec. 26] || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_115| 115 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE |GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| +++ || More or less our definition of minimum quality of service. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 26 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_116| 116 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| --- || AT&T amendment. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Rec. 26a || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Universal Service] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_117_.3D.3D _Amendment_118_---| 117 = 118 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| --- || AT&T amendment. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13. || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.20.1.b] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_125| 125 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE|GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| ++ || '''''Article 26, |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13. || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.20.1.b] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_126| 126 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| -- || To be able to distribute information is a fundamental right. Every limitation is ''relevant''. This amendment opens up for both state and corporate cencorship. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13. || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.20.1.b] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_127_.2B| 127 ]] || [[MEPs_Verts|Verts/ALE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| + || The amendement imposes transparency in contracts about any limitation to network neutrality, but it does not define requirements for such discrimination to be reasonable. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13. || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.20.1.b] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_128_-| 128 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| - || Same remarks as for am. 43. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.21.1] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_129| 129 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE|GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| ++ || Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.21.3] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_130_-| 130 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| - || Same remarks as for am. 49. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.21.3] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_131| 131 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE|GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| ++ || Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.21.3] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_133_-| 133 ]] || [[MEPs_Verts|Verts/ALE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| - || Every limitation is ''relevant''. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.22.1] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_135| 135 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE|GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| +++ || Allows to take measures against net discrimination |
|- | |- | ||
− | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | | [http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.22.3] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_136_.3D.3D _Amendment_137_.3D.3D _Amendment_138_---| 136 = 137 = 138 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| --- || AT&T amendment. Who determines what is justified or not? For operators, discrimination could be justified by profit (ie. forbidding VoIP on a mobile operator internet access). This is open door for net discrimination. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.22.3a] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_139_.3D.3D _Amendment_141_.2B.2B| 139 = 141 ]] || [[MEPs_Verts|Verts/ALE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| ++ || ====Amendment 141==== |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.22.3b] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_140| 140 ]] || [[MEPs_ALDE|ALDE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| -- || Weak complement to amendment 139, to reject in favor of 141. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.13 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.22.3c] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_142_0| 142 ]] || [[MEPs_Verts|Verts/ALE]] || 0 || Just repeat some statements of amendment 139, in order to state that traffic management policies are taken to assure minimum QoS. This does not add any limit to restrictions that ISPs are allowed to take. Therefore this amendment can either be voted or rejected. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.21 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.32a] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_146| 146 ]] || [[MEPs_Verts|Verts/ALE]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| +++ || repeats amendment 166 of first lecture, and 72 of Harbour |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.21 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.32a] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_147| 147 ]] || [[MEPs_PPE|PPE-DE]] || style="background:#FF6B6B"| --- || Attempt to insert right to property and sanction in the fundamental rights. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.1.22.b || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_Universal_Service_Council_Common_Position Art.33.3] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_148| 148 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE|GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| +++ || Deletes the last reference to ''lawful'' on which is based the graduated response. |
|- | |- | ||
− | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] | + | |[http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0698:FIN:EN:HTML Harbour] Art.2.6 || [http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package_ePrivacy_Council_Common_Position ePrivacy Art.6] || || [[Telecoms_Package_2nd_Reading_ITRE_IMCO_Amendments#Amendment_150| 150 ]] || [[MEPs_GUE|GUE/NGL]] || style="background:#A4FFA4"| +++ || The Council common position on this point would allow the telecommunications industry to collect a potentially unlimited amount of sensitive, confidential communications data including our telephone and e-mail contacts, the geographic position of our mobile phones and the websites we visit on the Internet. Apart from the creation of vast data pools that could go far beyond what is being collected under the directive on data retention, the proposal would also permit the disclosure of traffic data to other companies, government authorities and individuals. |
|} | |} |
Version du 26 mars 2009 à 12:13
See also the complete analysis of amendments and a focus on Network neutrality/discrimnation issues.
COD/2007/0247 - Trautmann report (framework, access, authorisation) - ITRE committee
- Amendments 1-110: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-420.223+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
- Amendments 111-167: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-421.390+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=FR
- (not published yet on http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/organes/itre/itre_20090330_1500.htm)
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING
on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (16496/1/2008 – C6-0066/2009 – 2007/0247(COD))
Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), rapporteur Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR
Amending | Amended | Topic | Am. # | Source | Advice | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Trautmann Art.1.8.a | Framework Art.8.1.2 | 42 | PSE | - | The addition of "paragraphs 2 to 4" in exceptions to network neutrality can be dangerous if amendment 45 (8.4.g) is passed. | |
Trautmann Art.1.8. | Framework Art.8.4.fa | 45 | PSE | --- | The notion of unlawful content is known to be applied to copyrighted content accessed or distributed without authorisation. As the rapporteur and the Council have stated, the Framework Directive has nothing to do with copyright. Therefore the amendment should be rejected or alternatively the word lawful should be deleted twice. | |
Trautmann Art.1.8. | Framework Art.8.4.fb | 46 | PSE | +++ | This amendment restores AM 138 adopted in 1st reading, which provides useful safeguards against other provisions laying grounds to "three-strikes approach" (graduated response). | |
Trautmann Art.2.2 | Access Art.4.1 | 83 | PSE | - | Dividing interconnection negotiations into classes a) electronic communications services, b) broadcast content and c) information society services is indicative of a paradigm non-compliant with the universal charachter of technology neutral Internet information exchange, and invites introducing barriers on a network that is interoperable by design. Such a paradigm must be justified by research and impact assessments. | |
Trautmann Art.2.3.a | Access Art.5.1.a | 85 | PSE | -- | This amendment introduces "fair and reasonable access to third-party services" as an alternative to end-to-end connectivity which breaks the fundamental peer-2-peer architecture of the Internet. The original article wording is as follows: '(a) to the extent that is necessary to ensure end-to-end connectivity, obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users, including in justified cases the obligation to interconnect their networks where this is not already the case;' | |
Trautmann Art.2.7.a | Access Art.9.1 | 90 | PSE | -- | The term traffic management policies is known to be used to establish network discrimination. And, while Council has used it in this provision as an example of terms and conditions for supply and use, here it is repeated as an obligation. Since some threats to network neutrality appear in Universal Service Directive, via the use of traffic management policies, it should be deleted in this paragraph. The fact that this paragraph establishes some obligations of transparency on network management policies leaves some place for network discrimination, if the term is not properly defined. Moreover, this obligation is followed by restrictions on access to service and applications which was the equivalent adopted by the European Parliament in first reading to the wording traffic management policies adopted by the Council in its Common Position. | |
Trautmann Annex.2.h | Authorisation Annex.A.19 | 107 | PSE | - | This amendment circumscribe the basic right to end-to-end connectivity by allowing undertakings to defacto place restrictions on user's services. The logical effect of the word including is actually excluding unlimited access. | |
Trautmann Art.1.8.fa | Framework Art 8.4.fa | 134 | Verts | +++ | Access and distribution of any content, and not only lawful content | |
Trautmann Art.1.8.fb | Framework Art.8.4.fb | 135 | Verts | +++ | Restores Amendment 138 of first reading, repeats Trautmann's 46. | |
Trautmann Art.2.7 | Framework Art.9.1 | 150 = 151 | PSE, Verts | ++ | Transparency concerning the goals and consequences of traffic management policies. | |
Trautmann Annex 2.h | Authorisation Annex.A.19 | 166 = 167 | PSE, Verts | - | This amendment circumscribe the basic right to end-to-end connectivity by allowing undertakings to defacto place restrictions on user's services. The logical effect of the word including is actually excluding unlimited access. |
COD/2007/0248 - Harbour report (universal service, ePrivacy) - IMCO committee
- Amendments 1-103: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/772/772115/772115en.pdf
- Amendments 104-152: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/am/774/774539/774539en.pdf
DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING
on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users’ rights relating to electronic communications networks, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (16497/1/2008 – C6-0068/2009 – 2007/0248(COD))
Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), rapporteur Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
Amending | Amended | Topic | Am. # | Source | Advice | Comment |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Harbour Rec. 22 | Universal Service | 5 | PPE-DE | - | Provides some safeguards against network discrimination. But type of limitation should not be specified at the option of the provider, since it would hinder transparency imposed on providers. Moreover this amendment gives a reason to delete the word lawful in Amendment 45 of ITRE draft report (Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point fa) as suggested. | |
Harbour Rec. 22a | Universal Service | 6 | PPE-DE | ++ | Restates the mere-conduct principle, which is at the basis of network neutrality. | |
Harbour Rec. 26 | Universal Service | 9 | PPE-DE | 0 | Mixes Recital 26 of the Council's Common Position and recital 14d of the European Parliament's first reading. It doesn't seem dangerous with regard to network discrimination. A similar amendment from AT&T was proposing to allow unjustified degradation of service, usage restrictions and/or limitations of traffic, which would have been very dangerous. | |
Harbour Rec. 39 | Universal Service | 17 | PPE-DE | -- | This amendment doesn't change anything in the important provisions of this recital, namely Furthermore, a mechanism could be established for the purpose of enabling appropriate cooperation on issues relating to the promotion of lawful content. Any cooperation procedures agreed pursuant to such a mechanism should, however, not allow for the systematic surveillance of internet usage. The cooperation to promote lawful content is known to be used as a ground for "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) and has nothing to do in the Universal Service Directive, since the rapporteur said that copyright enforcement has nothing to do in this directive. | |
Harbour Rec. 39a | Universal Service | 18 | PPE-DE | + | Principles established by Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC adds some safeguards for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, while it does not prevent a national administrative authority to enforce a "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) as currently drafted by French government. | |
Harbour Rec. 39b | Universal Service | 19 | PPE-DE | + | Restates the principle of network neutrality. | |
Harbour Rec. 39d | Universal Service | 21 | PPE-DE | 0 | This amendment restores, in a slightly modified version, Recital 27a adopted by European Parliament in its first reading. But this recital was presented by EDPS as an alternative to the deletion of a dangerous recital previously adopted in IMCO. Therefore, it can be adopted or rejected. | |
Harbour Art.1.13.b | Art.20.1.b | 43 | PPE-DE | - | Article 26; | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.21.3 | 49 | PPE-DE | - | connecting the call | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.22.3.1a | 53 | PPE-DE | 0 | This amendment restores partially Article 22 − paragraph 3 as adopted by European Parliament in its first reading, which has raised some concerns about the imposition of DRM. But the dangerous part of this paragraph has already be softened by the Council, replacing the reference to guidelines to enable the access or distribution of lawful content or applications by setting minimum quality of service requirements. Therefore, this amendment can be adopted or rejected. | |
Harbour Art.1.21 | Art.32a | 72 | PPE-DE | +++ | Access to content, services and applications | |
Harbour Art.1.23 | Art.34.1 | 74 | PPE-DE | + | and the authorities. | |
Harbour Art.2.6 | ePrivacy Art.6 | 85 | PPE-DE | -- | and Article 15(1). | |
Harbour Annex I.B.b | Universal Service | 103 | PPE-DE | 0 | persons to content unsuitable for them. | |
Harbour Rec. 22 | Universal Service | 106 | GUE/NGL | ++ | Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification. | |
Harbour Rec. 22 | Universal Service | 107 | Verts/ALE | + | * The first part of the amendment is preserving unrestricted access to content/services/applications, but the last part recalls that there can be limitations. Therefore this amendment is not very good, but can be accepted if limitations are clearly restricted in other amendments like 139/141. | |
Harbour Rec. 22a | Universal Service | 109 | GUE/NGL | +++ | More or less our definition of acceptable network management policies. | |
Harbour Rec. 22 | Universal Service | 110 | PPE-DE | ++ | French translation of amendment 6 of Harbour | |
Harbour Rec. 22b | Universal Service | 111 | GUE/NGL | +++ | More or less our definition of net neutrality. | |
Harbour Rec. 24 | Universal Service | 113 | GUE/NGL | + | This is an exact copy of Amendment 7, tabled by the Rapporteur, with the insertion of "and their traffic management policies". It is noteworthy the Rapporteur overwrites his own amendment 7 with amendment 112. | |
Harbour Rec. 24a | Universal Service | 114 | GUE/NGL | ++ | Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification. | |
Harbour Rec. 26 | Universal Service | 115 | GUE/NGL | +++ | More or less our definition of minimum quality of service. | |
Harbour Rec. 26 | Universal Service | 116 | PPE-DE | --- | AT&T amendment. | |
Harbour Rec. 26a | Universal Service | 117 = 118 | PPE-DE | --- | AT&T amendment. | |
Harbour Art.1.13. | Art.20.1.b | 125 | GUE/NGL | ++ | Article 26, | |
Harbour Art.1.13. | Art.20.1.b | 126 | PPE-DE | -- | To be able to distribute information is a fundamental right. Every limitation is relevant. This amendment opens up for both state and corporate cencorship. | |
Harbour Art.1.13. | Art.20.1.b | 127 | Verts/ALE | + | The amendement imposes transparency in contracts about any limitation to network neutrality, but it does not define requirements for such discrimination to be reasonable. | |
Harbour Art.1.13. | Art.20.1.b | 128 | PPE-DE | - | Same remarks as for am. 43. | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.21.1 | 129 | GUE/NGL | ++ | Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification. | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.21.3 | 130 | PPE-DE | - | Same remarks as for am. 49. | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.21.3 | 131 | GUE/NGL | ++ | Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification. | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.21.3 | 133 | Verts/ALE | - | Every limitation is relevant. | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.22.1 | 135 | GUE/NGL | +++ | Allows to take measures against net discrimination | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.22.3 | 136 = 137 = 138 | PPE-DE | --- | AT&T amendment. Who determines what is justified or not? For operators, discrimination could be justified by profit (ie. forbidding VoIP on a mobile operator internet access). This is open door for net discrimination. | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.22.3a | 139 = 141 | Verts/ALE | ++ | ====Amendment 141==== | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.22.3b | 140 | ALDE | -- | Weak complement to amendment 139, to reject in favor of 141. | |
Harbour Art.1.13 | Art.22.3c | 142 | Verts/ALE | 0 | Just repeat some statements of amendment 139, in order to state that traffic management policies are taken to assure minimum QoS. This does not add any limit to restrictions that ISPs are allowed to take. Therefore this amendment can either be voted or rejected. | |
Harbour Art.1.21 | Art.32a | 146 | Verts/ALE | +++ | repeats amendment 166 of first lecture, and 72 of Harbour | |
Harbour Art.1.21 | Art.32a | 147 | PPE-DE | --- | Attempt to insert right to property and sanction in the fundamental rights. | |
Harbour Art.1.22.b | Art.33.3 | 148 | GUE/NGL | +++ | Deletes the last reference to lawful on which is based the graduated response. | |
Harbour Art.2.6 | ePrivacy Art.6 | 150 | GUE/NGL | +++ | The Council common position on this point would allow the telecommunications industry to collect a potentially unlimited amount of sensitive, confidential communications data including our telephone and e-mail contacts, the geographic position of our mobile phones and the websites we visit on the Internet. Apart from the creation of vast data pools that could go far beyond what is being collected under the directive on data retention, the proposal would also permit the disclosure of traffic data to other companies, government authorities and individuals.
|