Voting List ITRE on Single Market Regulation

Recital 45

Amendment 238

Petra Kammerevert Recital 45
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications.	(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. Fundamentally equal treatment and non-discrimination in forwarding data packages, irrespective of content, service, application, origin or destination, must be safeguarded by law throughout the EU, to provide a lasting guarantee that all users of internet services have in principle access to all content, services or applications on the internet or can offer these themselves. Access network operators are subject to a general obligation to forward data packages by providing transfer services of an appropriate level of quality to users, regardless of origin and destination or the content, services and applications to be transferred. This level of quality must be continuously developed in line with technological progress. The open and non-discriminatory nature of the internet is the key driver of innovation and economic efficiency. These essential characteristics help secure the freedom and diversity of expression, the media and culture. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures. An open internet which works exclusively on the best-effort principle should not be undermined or have its future development hindered by the development of other products and services.

Amendment 239

Amelia Andersdotter Recital 45
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.	(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures. Indeed, as stated by the European Parliament resolution of 17 November 2011 on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe 2011/2866, 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 of, and demand for, content and services, and has made it a vitally important accelerator in the free circulation of knowledge, ideas and information, including in countries where access to independent media is limited;

Amendment 240

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Recital 45
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.	(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The key driver of the unprecedented innovation and economic activity in the digital age has been the fact that all internet traffic is treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of its sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application; conform the principle of net neutrality. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules to enshrine the principle of net neutrality in law at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

Amendment 241

Jean-Pierre Audy Recital 45
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.	(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The open and non-discriminatory nature of the internet plays a key driving role in innovation and economic efficiency, but also in safeguarding the freedom and pluralism of the media, as well as cultural diversity. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures. The development of specialised services or of traffic offering a guaranteed quality of service should not undermine the open internet based on the ‘best effort’ principle. The open internet must remain the standard and not become the exception.

Or.

Amendment 242

Ivo Belet Recital 45
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.	(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The openness and non-discriminatory features of the Internet are key drivers for innovation, economic efficiency as well as safeguards for media freedom, media pluralism and cultural diversity. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications, the risk for these practices being particular high for vertically integrated companies. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

Amendment 243

Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog Recital 45
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.	(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. This ability is best ensured when all types of traffic are treated equally by providers of electronic communications to the public. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

Amendment 244

Patrizia Toia Recital 45
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.	(45) The internet has developed over the past decades as an open platform for innovation with low access barriers for end-users, content and application providers and internet service providers. The existing regulatory framework aims at promoting the ability of end-users to access and distribute data and information or run applications and services of their choice. Recently, however, the report of the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) on traffic management practices published in May 2012 and a study, commissioned by the Executive Agency for Consumers and Health and published in December 2012, on the functioning of the market of internet access and provision from a consumer perspective, showed that a significant number of end-users are affected by traffic management practices which block or slow down specific applications. These tendencies require clear rules at the Union level to maintain the open internet and to avoid fragmentation of the single market resulting from individual Member States' measures.

Recital 46

Amendment 245

Petra Kammerevert Recital 46
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and lawful content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules and Directive 2000/31/EC.	(46) The right of end-users to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law.

Amendment 246

Françoise Castex Recital 46
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and lawful content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules and Directive 2000/31/EC.	(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and lawful content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules, Directive 1995/46, Directive 2002/58 and Directive 2000/31/EC.

Amendment 247

Amelia Andersdotter Recital 46
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and lawful content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules and Directive 2000/31/EC.	(46) The freedom of end-users to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice is subject to the respect of Union and compatible national law. This Regulation defines the limits for any restrictions to this freedom by providers of electronic communications to the public but is without prejudice to other Union legislation, including copyright rules, Directive 1995/46, Directive 2002/58, and Directive 2000/31/EC.

Justification:
The reference to Directive 1995/46 and Directive 2002/58 define the limit to traffic management from a data protection and privacy perspective

Amendment 248

András Gyürk Recital 46 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(46 a) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that limitations to the respect for private life, right of confidentiality of communications, right to data protection or freedom to receive or impart information must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. Union case law with respect to monitoring or filtering electronic communications confirms, that an imposition of an obligation on a provider of electronic communications or services to indiscriminately monitor communications constitutes not only a serious infringement on the freedom of the provider to conduct its business but also infringes the fundamental rights of the customers of the provider. Any scheme involving monitoring of communications or services should therefore either be specifically provided for by Union law, or national law adopted in conformity with union law, or, if based on a voluntary arrangement, be subject to court review.

Amendment 249

Amelia Andersdotter Recital 46 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(46 a) Non-discrimination of information in the sending, transmitting and receiving phase shall be ensured for encouraging innovation and eliminating entry barriers, as stated by the European Parliament in its implementation report on the regulatory framework for electronic communications 2013/2080;

Amendment 250

Amelia Andersdotter Recital 46 b (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(46 b) Potential anti-competitive and discriminative behaviour in traffic management would be contrary to the principle of net neutrality and the open internet, and should be therefore prevented, as also stated by the European Parliament in its initiative report 2013/2080;

Amendment 251

Amelia Andersdotter Recital 46 c (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(46 c) According to the European Parliament in its resolutions of 17th November 2011 on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe 2011/2866, and of 11th December 2012 on a digital freedom strategy in EU foreign policy 2012/2098, internet service providers should 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.

Recital 47

Amendment 252

Petra Kammerevert Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public ought not to delete, block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a number of reasonable traffic management measures that are clearly defined in this Regulation and individually justified. Such measures must be transparent, necessary and proportionate.

Amendment 253

Edit Herczog Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open Internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for Internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be relevant, efficient, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory, and in accordance with existing laws including, inter alia, privacy and data protection. Preserving the integrity and security of the network and minimising the effects of network congestion through traffic management measures should be considered reasonable provided that it occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances and provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Justification:
The language ‘and the general characteristics of the service’ could be misused as a loophole to offer products to consumers which do not in fact enable them to access and use the content, applications and services of their choice on the Internet. The only limitations to the open Internet, bar reasonable traffic management, should concern data volumes and speeds. The scope of what is deemed reasonable traffic management should also be more clearly caveated, in line with BEREC and EDPS guidance, to reflect notably the acceptable use of traffic management to handle genuine network security and congestion problems as they arise, and in full respect of data protection and privacy.

Amendment 254

Catherine Trautmann, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services and the general characteristics of the service, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances and if, upon request from the competent national authorities, the provider can demonstrate that equal treatment of traffic would be substantially less efficient.
	When a provider of electronic communications takes such measures, it should also inform the content, applications and services providers which are affected.

Amendment 255

Seán Kelly Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be efficient, appropriate, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory and in line with existing laws, including, inter alia, data protection. Reasonable traffic management encompasses the prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Preserving the integrity and security of the network and minimising the effects of network congestion through traffic management measures should be considered reasonable provided that it occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances and provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Justification:
The meaning of reasonable traffic management should be refined and tightened, in line with the guidelines and opinions of BEREC and EDPS, such as the acceptable use of traffic management to handle genuine network security and congestion problems, all the while respecting data privacy requirements.

Amendment 256

Teresa Riera Madurell Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate to the legitimate goal to be attained and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances and that the provider is able to demonstrate at the request of the national competent authority that impartial traffic management would prove less efficient.
	When taking such measures providers of electronic communications should inform the content, applications and services providers concerned.

Amendment 257

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be relevant, transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes and should be in accordance with existing laws including, inter alia, privacy and data protection. Preserving the integrity and security of the network and minimising the effects of network congestion through traffic management measures should be considered reasonable provided that it occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 258

Jean-Pierre Audy Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Any price discrimination or discriminatory conditions relating to data volumes and speeds in respect of specific content, applications or services should be prohibited. Reasonable traffic management measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances. As soon as they implement such measures, providers of electronic communications to the public must notify the providers of content, applications or services.

Or.

Amendment 259

Sabine Verheyen Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable in demonstrated temporary cases of acute traffic congestion, provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Amendment 260

Amelia Andersdotter Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of technically-reasonable, non-commercially based, traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

Justification:
Defining technical measures should only be done through objective criteria and excluding any subjective one such as "voluntary actions and commercial agreements of providers".

Amendment 261

Françoise Castex Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 262

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Recital 47
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should, within contractually agreed limits on data volumes and speeds for internet access services, not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management encompasses prevention or impediment of serious crimes, including voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography. Minimising the effects of network congestion should be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.	(47) In an open internet, providers of electronic communications to the public should not block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific content, applications or services or specific classes thereof except for a limited number of clearly defined reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures should be transparent, proportionate and non-discriminatory. Reasonable traffic management could encompass voluntary actions of providers to prevent access to and distribution of child pornography, subject to judicial review.. Minimising the effects of network congestion could be considered reasonable provided that network congestion occurs only temporarily or in exceptional circumstances.

Amendment 263

Jean-Pierre Audy Recital 47 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(47 a) The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union requires that limitations to the respect for private life, right of confidentiality of communications, right to data protection or freedom to receive or impart information must be provided for by law and respect the essence of those rights and freedoms. In the context of traffic management measures, the CJEU in Case C-70/10, SABAM v. Tiscali (Scarlet), with respect to general monitoring of electronic communications, states that an imposition of an obligation on an Internet service provider of electronic communications or services to indiscriminately monitor communications would constitutes not only a serious infringement on the freedom of the provider to conduct its business, but may also infringe the fundamental rights of the customers of the provider. Any scheme involving general monitoring of communications by providers of electronic communications or services should therefore be specifically provided for by Union law, or national law adopted in conformity with Union law;

Amendment 264

Petra Kammerevert Recital 47 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(47a) This Regulation is without prejudice to Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (E-Privacy Directive).

Recital 48

Amendment 265

Jean-Pierre Audy Recital 48
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on transparent information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of electronic communications to the public to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired.	(48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on transparent information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of electronic communications to the public to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. In order to customize their offers to meet end-user demand for specific content, services or applications, providers of electronic communications may provide offers where the conveyance of data for such content, services or applications is not deducted from the customers data allowance. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired.

Amendment 266

Teresa Riera Madurell Recital 48
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on transparent information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of electronic communications to the public to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired.	(48) Volume-based tariffs should be considered compatible with the principle of an open internet as long as they allow end-users to choose the tariff corresponding to their normal data consumption based on clear, transparent and explicit information about the conditions and implications of such choice. At the same time, such tariffs should enable providers of electronic communications to the public to better adapt network capacities to expected data volumes. It is essential that end-users are fully informed before agreeing to any data volume or speed limitations and the tariffs applicable, that they can continuously monitor their consumption and easily acquire extensions of the available data volumes if desired.

Recital 49

Amendment 267

Seán Kelly Recital 49
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.	(49) Services and applications delivered with an enhanced level of assured service quality can be offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of such specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. Where such agreements are concluded with the internet access provider, the provider should ensure that the enhanced quality service does not diminish the general quality of internet access. Take-up by end-users and application and commercial service providers of specialised services should thus be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.

Justification:
Having regard to BEREC’s conclusion that user control should prevail wherever possible, it is important that the Regulation clarifies that end-users and application and commercial service providers are not faced with suboptimal conditions and quality of internet access such that they are obliged to agree a contract for specialised services. Take-up of specialised services should thus be absolutely voluntary.

Amendment 268

Lambert van Nistelrooij Recital 49
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.	(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. The provision of such specialised services should not impair the general quality of internet access. Furthermore, traffic management measures should not be applied in such a way as to discriminate against specialised services competing with those offered by the provider of internet access either directly or in partnership with other undertakings unless there is an objective justification.

Amendment 269

Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog Recital 49
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.	(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring optimisations in order to ensure adequate service characteristics offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an optimised quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. Where such agreements are implemented alongside Internet access services, the responsible providers should ensure that the optimised quality service does not impair the general quality of internet access.

Amendment 270

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas Recital 49
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.	(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. Take-up by end-users or by providers of content, applications and services of commercial offers for specialised services should be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.

Amendment 271

Ivo Belet Recital 49
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.	(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. However these specialised services should remain the exception and should not be marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

Amendment 272

Gunnar Hökmark Recital 49
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.	(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services. It should be ensured that such agreements do not impair the general quality of internet access and lead to a two speed Internet.

Amendment 273

Jean-Pierre Audy Recital 49
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public or by content, applications or service providers. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with either providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications or services.	(49) There is also end-user demand for services and applications requiring an enhanced level of assured service quality offered by providers of electronic communications to the public. Such services may comprise inter alia broadcasting via Internet Protocol (IP-TV), video-conferencing and certain health applications. End-users should therefore also be free to conclude agreements on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service with providers of electronic communications to the public.

Recital 50

Amendment 274

Petra Kammerevert Recital 50
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.	(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on quality parameters. For the provision of specialised services in closed networks, it is necessary that content, applications and service providers have the opportunity to negotiate such a specific quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public for a limited group of users. This is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. Specialised services must not impair the quality of open internet access services nor be marketed as a substitute for the internet or used as such. They are permissible only if there is a demonstrable technical and specific need for them, beyond economic self-interest, as a means of providing real-time-critical applications, or applications at a particular level of quality. If specialised services are offered or marketed by access network providers, the latter have an obligation to also offer an open internet access service within the meaning of recital 45. All open internet services are subject to the best-effort principle.

Amendment 275

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Recital 50
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.	(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public could foster the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such defined levels of quality are technically necessary for the functionality of the service and these agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services, in accordance with the principle of net neutrality.

Amendment 276

Jean-Pierre Audy Recital 50
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.	(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services. In that respect, the dymanic allocation of the capacity not used for specialised services, when they are switched off, to the internet access service contributes to its overall quality;

Amendment 277

Françoise Castex Recital 50
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.	(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public could serve to the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such quality characteristics are technically necessary for the functionality of the service and agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services.

Amendment 278

Amelia Andersdotter Recital 50
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.	(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public could be used for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such quality characteristics are technically necessary for the functionality of the service and agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services.

Justification:
A specialised service must not be considered as an arbitrary way for Internet Service Providers and Internet Access Providers to be completely free to enter with each other into commercial agreements, by passing “open internet” provisions, violating both freedom of communication as well as competition and innovation in the digital economy. For this reason, it is mandatory to specify that specialised services shall be distinct from Internet access services, and they shall not replicate an already-existing service already accessible on the internet.

Amendment 279

Teresa Riera Madurell Recital 50
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.	(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public opens the door to the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services.

Amendment 280

Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein Recital 50
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.	(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not impair the quality of internet access services.

Amendment 281

Catherine Trautmann Recital 50
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public is necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.	(50) In addition, there is demand on the part of content, applications and services providers, for the provision of transmission services based on flexible quality parameters, including lower levels of priority for traffic which is not time-sensitive. The possibility for content, applications and service providers to negotiate such flexible quality of service levels with providers of electronic communications to the public may be necessary for the provision of specialised services and is expected to play an important role in the development of new services such as machine-to-machine (M2M) communications. At the same time such arrangements should allow providers of electronic communications to the public to better balance traffic and prevent network congestion. Providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public should therefore be free to conclude specialised services agreements on defined levels of quality of service as long as such agreements do not substantially impair the general quality of internet access services.

Recital 51

Amendment 282

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Recital 51
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.	(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. National regulatory authorities should establish clear and comprehensible notification and redress mechanisms for end-users subjected to discrimination, restriction or interference of online content, services or applications. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.

Amendment 283

Giles Chichester Recital 51
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.	(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with enhanced quality services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services or to safeguard the ability of end users to access and distribute content or information or to run applications and services of their choice.

Amendment 284

Petra Kammerevert Recital 51
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise this freedom to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.	(51) National regulatory authorities play an essential role in ensuring that end-users are effectively able to exercise the right to avail of open internet access. To this end national regulatory authorities should have monitoring and reporting obligations, and ensure compliance of providers of electronic communications to the public and the availability of non-discriminatory internet access services of high quality which are not impaired by specialised services. In their assessment of a possible general impairment of internet access services, national regulatory authorities should take account of quality parameters such as timing and reliability parameters (latency, jitter, packet loss), levels and effects of congestion in the network, actual versus advertised speeds, performance of internet access services compared with specialised services, and quality as perceived by end-users. National regulatory authorities should be empowered to impose minimum quality of service requirements on all or individual providers of electronic communications to the public if this is necessary to prevent general impairment/degradation of the quality of service of internet access services.

Article 1

Amendment 322

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch, Amelia Andersdotter Article 1 – paragraph 2 – point e a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	e a) to ensure that all internet traffic is treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference, independent of its sender, receiver, type, content, device, service or application;

Article 2

Amendment 347

Petra Kammerevert Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(14) "internet access service" means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;	(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used; the Member States shall lay down appropriate minimum requirements for the quality of service of internet access services which shall continually be upgraded in line with technological developments; an internet access service enables end-users to use any internet-based application in accordance with the best effort principle; the only permissible derogation from this principle is proportionate, justified traffic management, in cases where the conditions for its use are clearly defined;

Amendment 348

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet, Doris Pack Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;	(14) 'open internet access service' means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet at a level of quality that reflects the advances in technology, and thereby allows for connectivity between all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used and without any restrictions to the legal content exchanged. It enables end-users to run any application utilising the electronic communication function of the Internet. Unrestricted Internet access service is based on the best efforts principle, the only exceptions allowed are proportionate technical traffic management measures or implementation of court order;

Amendment 349

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(14) "internet access service" means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;	(14) "internet access service" means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used. It allows end-users to run any application using an electronic communications network on the basis of the ‘best effort’ principle;

Or.

Amendment 350

Amelia Andersdotter Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;	(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used; It enables end-users to run any application utilising the electronic communications network of the internet.

Amendment 351

Catherine Trautmann Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;	(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and therewith connectivity between virtually all end points of the internet, irrespective of the network technologies used;

Amendment 352

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 14
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(14) ‘internet access service’ means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology used;	(14) 'internet access service' means a publicly available electronic communications service that provides connectivity to the internet, and thereby connectivity between virtually all end points connected to the internet, irrespective of the network technology or devices used;

Justification:
Further clarification with regards to different devices.

Amendment 353

Petra Kammerevert Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) ʻspecialised serviceʼ means an electronic communications service or any other service that is provided and operated only within closed electronic communications networks and is not marketed or used as an internet substitute or functionally identical to the content, applications or services of the open internet. A specialised service shall be admissible only where there is a manifest technical and factual need, over and above economic self-interest, for particular real-time critical applications meeting certain quality criteria. It is characterised by clearly-defined, guaranteed and customised quality-of-service parameters which are subject to continuous end-to-end management up to the ‘last mile’ by the specialised service provider. A specialised service may not be limited to an endpoint controlled by the service provider.

Amendment 354

Amelia Andersdotter Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) 'specialised service' means an electronic communications service operated within closed electronic communications networks using the Internet Protocol with strict admission control; and that is not marketed as a substitute for internet access service or functionally identical to services available over the public internet access service;

Justification:
based on the BEREC definition, which points out the idea that a specialised service cannot be operated on the best effort internet, but has to run separately from it, namely within “closed network with strict admission control”. Furthermore a specialised service must not replicate any service already existing on the internet or else it would simply circumvent Net Neutrality.

Amendment 355

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service, operated within closed electronic communications networks using the Internet Protocol with strict admission control; and that is not marketed or used as a substitute for internet access service or functionally identical to services available over the public internet access service;

Amendment 356

Françoise Castex Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service operated within closed electronic communications networks using the Internet Protocol with strict admission control and that is not marketed or used as a substitute for internet access service or functionally identical to services available over the public internet access service;

Amendment 357

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet, Doris Pack Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) 'specialised service' means an electronic communications service or any other service that is provided and operated within a closed electronic communications network using the internet protocol, relying on strict admission control and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

Amendment 358

Angelika Niebler Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send data to a determined number of parties or endpoints which are provided and operated in closed electronic communications networks using the Internet Protocol. These networks shall be subject to strict admissibility checks. A specialised service may not be used as a substitute for internet access service.

Amendment 359

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) 'specialised service' means an electronic communications service or any other service using the Internet Protocol that provides to a determined number of parties optimised access to specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and the technical characteristics of which are controlled using traffic management in order to ensure adequate service characteristics; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

Justification:
End-to-end control of specialised services might not always be technically possible or, in certain cases, not even intended as e.g. only a part of the transmission route could be optimised. Also it is not clear whether a complete end-to-end control is feasible for mobile data connections. Furthermore, it has been explicitly mentioned that optimised access naturally involves traffic management.

Amendment 360

Catherine Trautmann, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access or use specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, in order to ensure adequate characteristics from end-to-end. A specialised service is operated within closed electronic communications networks and thus clearly separated from internet access services and is not marketed or used as a substitute for internet access service;

Amendment 361

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) "specialised service" means an electronic communications service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, that is subject to admission control and whose technical characteristics are controlled using traffic management in order to ensure adequate service characteristics or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service

Amendment 362

Giles Chichester Article 2 – paragraph 2 – point 15
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(15) ‘specialised service’ means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;	(15) 'specialised service' means an electronic communications service or any other service that provides the capability to access specific content, applications or services, or a combination thereof with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity, and whose technical characteristics are controlled from end-to-end or provides the capability to send or receive data to or from a determined number of parties or endpoints; and that is not marketed or widely used as a substitute for internet access service;

Amendment 363

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău Chapter 2 – title
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Single EU authorisation	Harmonisation and simplification of authorisation regulations

Article 23

Amendment 579

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – title
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Freedom to provide and avail of open internet access, and reasonable traffic management	Open internet access, specialised services and reasonable, justified traffic management

Amendment 580

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack Article 23 – title
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Freedom to provide and avail of open internet access, and reasonable traffic management	Open internet access, specialised services, and reasonable traffic management

Amendment 581

Giles Chichester Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.	End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice, irrespective of their origin or destination, via their internet access service.
	Internet access service providers shall not restrict or prevent the use by end-users of any terminal equipment to access and distribute information and content via their internet access service. This is without prejudice to the rights of Member States to grant individual rights of use under Article 5 of Directive 2002/20/EC.
	Providers of electronic communications to the public shall ensure that end-users are able to run any application utilising the electronic communication function of the internet without any form of restriction on the content exchanged, except for the purposes of reasonable traffic management measures or to implement a court order.

Amendment 582

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.	(1) Open internet access shall be fully guaranteed in accordance with Article 2(14), so as to enable end-users to access and distribute any information and content they choose, run applications and use services and terminal devices of their choice via their open internet access service, irrespective of the source or destination of such information, content, applications or services.
	Access network operators shall be subject to a general forwarding obligation in accordance with the best-effort principle.

Amendment 583

Françoise Castex Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.	End-users have the right to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services and devices of their choice via their internet access service.
	In order to guarantee a genuine users' freedom of choice, internet service providers shall not discriminate, restrict or interfere with the transmission of Internet traffic.

Amendment 584

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.	Users shall have the right to access and distribute information and content, run and provide applications and services and use devices of their choice via an internet access.
	Internet service providers shall not discriminate, restrict or interfere with the transmission of Internet traffic.

Amendment 585

<MB>Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog</MB> Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1

|- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Text proposed by the Commission |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Amendment |- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service. |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services and devices of their choice, irrespective of their origin or destination, via their internet access service. |}

Amendment 586

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.	End-users shall be free, using devices of their choice, to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice, irrespective of their origin or destination, via their internet access service.

Amendment 587

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.	End-users have the right to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services or devices of their choice via their internet access service, in accordance with the principle of net neutrality.

Amendment 588

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice via their internet access service.	End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services and devices of their choice via their internet access service.

Amendment 589

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.	deleted

Justification:
The added value of this provision is unclear. Naturally, users are free to enter into contracts. Furthermore, whether these contracts provide for data volumes, speeds or e.g. service quality characteristics is entirely a question of offer and demand and requires no regulation.

Amendment 590

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.	End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services. Providers of Internet access services shall advertise with the minimum guaranteed data volume and speed they can provide for, not the maximum speed.

Amendment 591

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.	End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services.

Amendment 592

Teresa Riera Madurell Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.	End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services. Users shall always be informed in advance of these agreements and shall give their explicit consent to their conclusion. End-users shall be free in accordance with any such agreements to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 593

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.	With due account to the principle of net neutrality, end-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services, provided they freely and explicitly give their informed consent, and to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 594

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.	Provided that they freely give their explicit, specific and informed consent, end-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 595

Françoise Castex Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.	Provided that they freely give their explicit, specific and informed consent, end-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 596

Angelika Niebler Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.	End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds, as well as general performance characteristics, with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.

Amendment 597

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services.	End-users shall be free to enter into agreements on data volumes and speeds with providers of internet access services and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of internet content, applications and services. The tariffs may not exceed the eurotariffs.

Amendment 598

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	Where agreements on data volumes and speeds are entered into, specific content, services or applications may not be omitted from the calculation of volume use or exempted from ‘throttling’ when the agreed data volume limit is reached.

Amendment 599

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(1a) It shall not be permissible for providers to impose any form of restriction on access to communication networks, content, applications or services on the basis of end-users’ using terminal equipment not supplied or recommended by the provider.

Amendment 600

Seán Kelly Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.	Providers of electronic communication services or providers of content, applications and services shall be allowed to offer specialised services with an enhanced quality of service in addition to internet access services, provided that such offers are not detrimental to internet access services or their performance, affordability or quality.
	Take-up by end-users and application and commercial service providers of specialised services should thus be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.

Justification:
Having regard to BEREC’s conclusion that user control should prevail wherever possible, it is important that the Regulation clarifies that end-users and application and commercial service providers are not faced with suboptimal conditions and quality of internet access such that they are obliged to agree a contract for specialised services. Take-up of specialised services should thus be absolutely voluntary.

Amendment 601

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.	Providers of electronic communications to the public or providers of content, applications and services may provide specialised services, via a closed, electronic communications network, to a limited user group, access to which is controlled. Specialised services may not be marketed or used as substitutes for the internet and may not be identical to content, applications or services available on the open internet.

Amendment 602

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.	Providers of electronic communications to the public and providers of content, applications and services shall be free to provide to end-user specialised services with an enhanced quality of service, the provision of which shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services. National regulatory authorities shall ensure that end-users are free to access these specialised services.

Justification:
Redrafting to put the elements into logical order, i.e. first providers are free to offer specialised services and, if they do so, then users should be free to benefit from these. Again, what is important is not the fact that users are free to use these services - since they would be even without this provision. Rather it is important to stress that these rights should be enforced by regulatory authorities.

Amendment 603

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.	End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service. Where such agreements are concluded with the provider of internet access services, that provider shall ensure that the enhanced quality of service is not to the detriment of the performance, affordability or quality of internet access services, in accordance with the principle of net neutrality.

Amendment 604

<MB>Catherine Trautmann, Patrizia Toia, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas, Edit Herczog</MB> Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1

|- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Text proposed by the Commission |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Amendment |- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service. |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services operated in closed electronic networks with an enhanced quality of service. |- |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| |width="50%" style="vertical-align:top;"| Providers of electronic communications to the end-user shall not discriminate against contents, services or applications from other sources that are competing with their own specialised services. |}

Amendment 605

Patrizia Toia Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.	End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service, provided that this does not undermine the overall quality of internet access, unless in emergency conditions or due to a genuine substantiated need.

Amendment 606

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.	End-users shall also be free to access specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

Amendment 607

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.	Users shall also have the right to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.

Amendment 608

Angelika Niebler Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services with an enhanced quality of service.	End-users shall also be free to agree with either providers of electronic communications to the public or with providers of content, applications and services on the provision of specialised services for closed user groups with an enhanced quality of service.

Amendment 609

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	deleted

Justification:
As with the preceding provisions, the added value of the first sentence is unclear as providers are anyway free to agree amongst each other on specialised services. The important element of non-impairment of general internet access services was integrated in the amendment to the preceding paragraph.

Amendment 610

Catherine Trautmann Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. Providers of electronic communications shall take the necessary measures to ensure that the effect of the provision of specialised services through their network is always transparent and does not impair the general quality of internet access services in terms of performance, affordability and availability. In so doing, they should maintain internet access services of sufficient capacity and quality to accommodate the advertised internet speeds offered to their end users without congestion.
	In order for national regulatory authorities to be able to assess such potential impairment, providers of electronic communications to the public shall make available, upon request, precise information explaining how capacities are assigned to the two types of services, and if necessary provide justifications about the measures put in place to prevent impairment of internet access services by the specialised services.

Amendment 611

Angelika Niebler Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	Where such agreements with internet access providers are entered into, the provider shall ensure that the higher quality of service does not impair the general quality of internet access services. Providers of specialised services who are also network operators or providers of internet access services may not discriminate against other providers who are reliant on the network operator’s forwarding services, and they shall be required to charge for forwarding in a transparent manner and at fair market prices.

Amendment 612

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services. Neither shall these services impair existing, generally recognised technical standards and their development. Specialised services shall thus be permissible only if there is a demonstrable technical and specific need for them, beyond economic self-interest, as a means of providing genuinely time-critical applications, or applications with a particular security requirement, at a particular level of quality.

Amendment 613

Sabine Verheyen Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	Providers of electronic communication services or providers of content, applications and services may offer specialised services to end users provided they are offered in addition to an open internet access service at a level of quality that reflects the technical progress and provided that they do not impair the general performance, affordability, or quality of open internet access services. Specialised services shall only be offered if the network capacity is sufficient to provide such services in addition to the open internet access. Take-up by end-users or by content and application providers of commercial offers to support managed services should be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.

Amendment 614

Giles Chichester Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	Providers of electronic communication services or providers of content, applications and services shall be allowed to offer specialised services provided that such offers are in addition to internet access services and are not to the material detriment of their affordability or quality.

Amendment 615

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic within closed electronic communications networks as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity, which are not functionally identical to services available over the public internet access service. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services. Where network capacity is shared between internet access services and specialised services, the provider of these services shall publish clear and unambiguous criteria based on which network capacity is shared.

Amendment 616

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services. Take-up by end-users or by providers of content, applications and services of commercial offers for specialised services should be on a voluntary and non-discriminatory basis.

Amendment 617

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	In order to enable the provision of specialised services to users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public may enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services.

Amendment 618

Ivo Belet Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the general quality of internet access services.

Amendment 619

Teresa Riera Madurell Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services.

Amendment 620

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair in a recurring or continuous manner the general quality of internet access services.	In order to enable the provision of specialised services to end-users, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to enter into agreements with each other to transmit the related data volumes or traffic as specialised services with a defined quality of service or dedicated capacity. The provision of specialised services shall not impair the quality of internet access services.

Amendment 621

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	Access network providers who simultaneously offer or market specialised services shall be subject to the same provision obligation as an open internet access service, in accordance with Article 2(14). They may not discriminate against other content providers who are reliant on the network operator’s forwarding services, and they shall be required to charge for forwarding in a transparent manner and at fair market prices.

Amendment 622

Giles Chichester Article 23 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	For national authorities to be able to assess such potential material detriment, providers of electronic communications services or providers of content, applications and services shall transmit to the national authorities, upon request, precise information regarding the capacities assigned to the two types of services.

Amendment 623

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 23 – paragraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	2a. Vertically integrated providers of electronic communications to the public shall not discriminate in any way against traffic from providers of content, applications or services offering content, services or applications competing with their own services or with services provided under exclusive arrangements;

Amendment 624

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. This Article is without prejudice to Union or national legislation related to the lawfulness of the information, content, application or services transmitted.	deleted

Amendment 625

Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein Article 23 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. This Article is without prejudice to Union or national legislation related to the lawfulness of the information, content, application or services transmitted.	deleted

Justification:
Together with the implementation of a legislative provision as a ground for traffic management this would give green light to discriminating against, degrading or blocking any content deemed unlawful under the EU or national legislation. Such measures could disproportionately affect end-users' rights to confidentiality of communications, privacy and data protection.

Amendment 626

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(3) This Article is without prejudice to Union or national legislation related to the lawfulness of the information, content, application or services transmitted.	deleted

Amendment 627

Sabine Verheyen Article 23 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
4. The exercise of the freedoms provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be facilitated by the provision of complete information in accordance with Article 25(1), Article 26 (2), and Article 27 (1) and (2).	4. End-users as well as content, application, and service providers, including the media and cultural industries and governments at all levels, shall be provided with complete information in accordance with Article 20 (2), Article 21 (3) and Article 21a of Directive 2002/22/EC, including information on any reasonable traffic management measures applied that might affect access to and distribution of information, content, applications and services as specified in paragraphs 1 and 2.

Amendment 628

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 4
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(4) The exercise of the freedoms provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be facilitated by the provision of complete information in accordance with Article 25(1), Article 26 (2), and Article 27 (1) and (2).	(4) The exercise of the rights provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 shall be facilitated by the provision of complete information in accordance with Article 25(1), Article 26 (2), and Article 27 (1) and (2).

Amendment 629

Edit Herczog Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	5. Providers of Internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by discriminating against, restricting, or otherwise interfering with the transmission of Internet traffic except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures or to implement a court order. Traffic management measures shall be deemed reasonable when they are deployed to more efficiently manage traffic on the network in order to preserve the integrity and security of the network, and more efficiently manage traffic on the network in demonstrated punctual cases of acute congestion, provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally. These measures should be shown to comply with the general criteria of relevance, proportionality, efficiency, non-discrimination between parties and transparency, and in accordance with existing laws, including inter alia, privacy and data protection.
	Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this article.

Justification:
It is important to capture the various ways in which the access and use of Internet content, applications and services is being discriminated against (and is at risk of being discriminated against), beyond mere blocking and degradation, in order to address undue preference for an ISP’s own or affiliated Internet-based content, applications and services. Concerning reasonable traffic management, if itemising every possible case would risk being incomplete, cumbersome and not future-proof, there remains a need for all involved to have a very clear scope of what is deemed to be ‘reasonable’ traffic management. The amendment suggested draws on regulatory best practice, notably wording from French NRA ARCEP, to provide this scope. Reference to the need for traffic management to respect freedoms and obligations under privacy and data protection legislation are also highlighted, in line with the several opinions of the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and others on this subject.

Amendment 630

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	(5) Providers of internet access services shall not restrict the rights provided for in paragraph 1 by:
	(a) deleting, blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications, services or terminal devices, or specific classes thereof,
	(b) prioritising specific content, applications, services or terminal devices, or specific classes thereof, or
	(c) concluding special pricing agreements with the end-user which make accessing particular content, applications, services or terminal devices or specific classes thereof seem less economically attractive,
	except in cases where it is necessary to apply justified and reasonable traffic management measures. Such measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 631

Angelika Niebler Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by limiting or otherwise impairing the flow of internet traffic, e.g. by blocking, slowing down or degrading it or by means of discrimination, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures should not be applied in a manner directed against particular providers’ content or applications or which downgrades particular providers. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory and proportionate and shall include inter alia the processing of data in order to:

Amendment 632

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against, restricting specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures or to implement a court order. Traffic management measures shall be considered reasonable when they are deployed to more efficiently manage traffic on the network in order to preserve the integrity and security of the network, and more efficiently manage traffic on the network in demonstrated punctual cases of acute congestion, provided equivalent types of traffic are treated equally. These measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, and proportionate.

Amendment 633

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Providers of internet access services shall treat all internet traffic in accordance with the principle of net neutrality, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate, subject to clear, comprehensible and accessible redress mechanisms and necessary to:

Amendment 634

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures.
	These measures should be shown to comply with the general criteria of relevance, proportionality, efficiency, non-discrimination between parties and transparency, and in accordance with existing laws, including inter alia, privacy and data protection.
	Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 635

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Providers of internet access services shall not block, slow down or discriminate against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 636

Giles Chichester Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	5. Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Furthermore, traffic management measures shall not be applied in such a way as to discriminate against services competing with those offered by the provider of internet access.
	Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate

Amendment 637

Gunnar Hökmark Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Traffic management measures shall not be applied in such a way as to discriminate against services competing with those offered by the provider of internet access. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 638

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Providers of internet access services shall not restrict the right provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading, altering or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in certain special cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, and strictly proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 639

Françoise Castex Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Providers of internet access services shall not restrict the right provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:

Amendment 640

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and efficient. Reasonable traffic management includes the processing of data to:

Amendment 641

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – introductory part
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes or speeds for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:	Within the limits of any contractually agreed data volumes, speeds or general quality characteristics for internet access services, providers of internet access services shall not restrict the freedoms provided for in paragraph 1 by discriminating against specific content, applications or services, or specific classes thereof, except in cases where it is necessary to apply reasonable traffic management measures. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent, non-discriminatory, proportionate and necessary, in particular, to:

Justification:
Simpler drafting and opening of the list of reasons for traffic management. It is not predictable whether there might be a need for traffic management in other situations in future. Since several layers of safeguards have been built in in the Regulation with regards to traffic management, making the list non-exhaustive does not appear to allow for abuses.

Amendment 642

Giles Chichester Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;	deleted

Amendment 643

Edit Herczog Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;	deleted

Amendment 644

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;	deleted

Amendment 645

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;	deleted

Justification:
Deletion due to new Article 23 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 - introductory part.

Amendment 646

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;	(a) implement a court order;

Justification:
A traffic management measure cannot result in the involvement of the liability of an electronic communication provider who is not qualified or entitled either to implement a legislative provision nor prevent or impede a serious crime. This shall be performed by a judge in order to guarantee the rule of law.

Amendment 647

Françoise Castex Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;	(a) implement a court order;

Amendment 648

Marietje Schaake Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;	(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order;

Amendment 649

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point a
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order, or prevent or impede serious crimes;	(a) implement a legislative provision or a court order;

Justification:
It should be underlined that for any such measures a legal basis or a court order is always required.

Amendment 650

Giles Chichester Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals;	deleted

Amendment 651

Edit Herczog Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals;	deleted

Amendment 652

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals;	deleted

Justification:
Deletion due to new Article 23 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 - introductory part.

Amendment 653

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals;	(b) preserve the integrity and security of the European electronic communication provider's network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals;

Amendment 654

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point b
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users’ terminals;	(b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users’ terminals, or

Amendment 655

Giles Chichester Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;	deleted

Amendment 656

Edit Herczog Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;	deleted

Amendment 657

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;	deleted

Amendment 658

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;	deleted

Amendment 659

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;	deleted

Justification:
Deletion due to new Article 23 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 - introductory part.

Amendment 660

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;	(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users;

Amendment 661

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;	(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users;

Justification:
It is general practice that providers filter spam. Requiring explicit agreement from individual users is not possible in practice.

Amendment 662

Françoise Castex Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;	(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications for direct marketing purposes to end-users who have freely given their prior explicit and informed consent to such restrictive measures;

Amendment 663

Catherine Trautmann Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point c
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;	(c) prevent the transmission of specific communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures;

Amendment 664

Giles Chichester Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	deleted

Amendment 665

Edit Herczog Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	deleted

Amendment 666

Sabine Verheyen, Ivo Belet Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	deleted

Justification:
Deletion due to new Article 23 - paragraph 5 - subparagraph 1 - introductory part.

Amendment 667

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	(d) mitigate the effects of temporary and exceptional network congestion, primarily by means of application-agnostic measures or, when these measures do not prove efficient, by mean of application-specific measures, provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Justification:
In order to preserve net neutrality, the internet service provider shall primarily solve the congestion by ensuring that no specific internet applications, content or service will be subject to discrimination.

Amendment 668

Catherine Trautmann Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	(d) mitigate the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion, primarily by means of application-agnostic measures or, when these measures do not prove efficient, by means of application-specific measures, provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Amendment 669

Françoise Castex Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	(d) mitigate the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion, primarily by means of application-agnostic measures or, when these measures do not prove efficient, by mean of application-specific measures, provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Amendment 670

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	(d) (b) minimise the effects of temporary and exceptional network congestion provided that, in so doing, all content, applications and services are treated in accordance with the best-effort principle.

Amendment 671

Angelika Niebler Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	(d) minimise or prevent the effects of network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Amendment 672

Teresa Riera Madurell Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally, avoiding, wherever possible, measures which discriminate between applications, content, services or devices.

Amendment 673

Jürgen Creutzmann Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	(d) prevent network congestion and minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Justification:
Following the original wording, paradoxically, providers could only mitigate already existing congestion but not take measures to prevent them in the first place. Pro-active and preventing measures should not be excluded.

Amendment 674

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that all traffic are treated equally.

Amendment 675

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 1 – point d
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(d) minimise the effects of temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.	(d) minimise the effects of any recorded temporary or exceptional network congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally.

Amendment 676

Edit Herczog Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph.	deleted

Amendment 677

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph.	deleted

Amendment 678

Catherine Trautmann, Teresa Riera Madurell, Dimitrios Droutsas Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph.	National Regulatory Authorities shall monitor whether the practices in their market respect these criteria, in particular whether reasonable traffic management measures only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph. To that purpose, they shall in particular:
	(a) be mandated to regularly monitor and report on Internet traffic management practices and usage polices, in order to ensure network neutrality, evaluate the potential impact of the aforementioned practices and policies on fundamental rights, ensure the provision of a sufficient quality of service and the allocation of a satisfactory level of network capacity to the Internet. Reporting should be done in an open and transparent way and reports shall be made freely available to the public;
	(b) put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures aimed at addressing network neutrality complaints. To this end, all Internet users shall be entitled to make use of such complaint procedures in front of the relevant authority;
	(c) respond to the complaints within a reasonable time and be able to use necessary measures in order to sanction the breach of the network neutrality principle.
	These authorities must have the necessary resources to undertake the aforementioned duties in a timely and effective manner. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity, competition and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the public, the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.
	The Commission shall, after consulting stakeholders and in cooperation with BEREC, lay down guidelines further defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national regulatory authorities under this Article.

Amendment 679

Giles Chichester Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph.	Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph.
	By 1st January 2015, BEREC shall, after consulting stakeholders and in close cooperation with the Commission, lay down general guidelines for the application of reasonable traffic management measures, on the basis of this Article.

Justification:
The definition of what constitutes reasonable or acceptable/necessary traffic management will change over time, as the technology continues to develop rapidly and network capacity increases. It is therefore preferable for guidance on what constitutes ‘reasonable traffic management’ to be produced (and kept up to date) by those closest to the markets i.e. regulators acting collectively through BEREC.

Amendment 680

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph.	Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph. Therefore all techniques to inspect or analyse data shall be in accordance with privacy and data protection legislation. By default, such techniques should only examine header information.

Amendment 681

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph.	Reasonable traffic management shall only entail processing of data that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in this paragraph. The processing of data shall not reveal any information concerning the content of the communication the end users access.

Justification:
Traffic management measures shall not be based on intrusive communications inspection technique as Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). This provision is extremely necessary to protect freedoms of the European citizens regarding the respect for their private and family life and the protection of personal data, in accordance to article 7 and 8 of the Charter of the Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

Amendment 682

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 5 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	No packet inspection going beyond checking of the headers of the data packets shall take place.

Amendment 683

Petra Kammerevert Article 23 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(5a) The Commission shall be empowered to adopt delegated acts in accordance with Article 32 to lay down the technical criteria in accordance with Article 23(5) for determining with maximum accuracy whether exceptional circumstances, as described therein, apply. The requirements to be met in order for exceptional circumstances to apply should be as stringent as possible.

Amendment 684

Amelia Andersdotter Article 23 – paragraph 5 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	5a. The prices of internet access services from providers of electronic communications to the public shall not depend on the internet content, applications and services used or offered through the same internet access services

Justification:
This is a safeguard against data cap leverage scenario where ISP has very low data caps on public internet access but offers unlimited data for specialised services. This amendment is inspired by the Dutch net neutrality law.

Article 24

Amendment 685

Sabine Verheyen, Doris Pack, Ivo Belet Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2) and the continued availability of open internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also ensure that the effects of specialised services do not impair cultural diversity, media pluralism and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall also closely monitor and ensure the application of reasonable traffic management measures in compliance with Article 23 (5) taking the utmost account of the BEREC guidelines specified in paragraph 2 of this Article and in paragraph 3a of Article 21(3a) of the Directive 2002/22/EC. Reasonable traffic management measures shall be subject to periodic review to reflect advances in technology. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.

Amendment 686

Françoise Castex Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	1. National regulatory authorities shall closely ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. To that purpose, the competent national regulatory authority shall:
	(a) be mandated to regularly monitor and report on Internet traffic management practices and usage polices, in order to ensure network neutrality, evaluate the potential impact of the aforementioned practices and policies on fundamental rights, ensure the provision of a sufficient quality of service and the allocation of a satisfactory level of network capacity to the Internet. Reporting should be done in an open and transparent fashion and reports shall be made freely available to the public;
	(b) put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures aimed at addressing network neutrality complaints. To this end, all Internet users shall be entitled to make use of such complaint procedures in front of the relevant authority;
	(c) respond to the complaints within a reasonable time and be able to use necessary measures in order to sanction the breach of the network neutrality principle.
	This authority must have the necessary resources to undertake the aforementioned duties in a timely and effective manner.
	They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity, competition and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the public, the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.

Amendment 687

Amelia Andersdotter Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	1. National regulatory authorities shall closely ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings. To that purpose, the competent national regulatory authority shall:
	(a) be mandated to regularly monitor and report on Internet traffic management practices and usage polices, in order to ensure network neutrality, evaluate the potential impact of the aforementioned practices and policies on fundamental rights, ensure the provision of a sufficient quality of service and the allocation of a satisfactory level of network capacity to the Internet. Reporting should be done in an open and transparent fashion and reports shall be made freely available to the public;
	(b) put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures aimed at addressing network neutrality complaints. To this end, all Internet users shall be entitled to make use of such complaint procedures in front of the relevant authority;
	(c) respond to the complaints within a reasonable time and be able to use necessary measures in order to sanction the breach of the network neutrality principle.
	This authority must have the necessary resources to undertake the aforementioned duties in a timely and effective manner.
	They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities and the European Data Protection Supervisor, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity, competition and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the public, the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.

Justification:
National Regulatory Authorities’ role must be better defined to guarantee the enforcement mechanism and properly enforce the net neutrality principle, guarantee the freedom of expression and information of users, as well as competition and innovation in the digital economy. The European data protection supervisor should be able to monitor on how specialised services can impact the data protection of European citizens.

Amendment 688

Ioannis A. Tsoukalas Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	1. The European Commission and national regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued broad availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. Actual Internet speeds and quality of service for individual applications, for types of applications as well as for specialised services should be monitored and tested on an ongoing basis and the findings of this monitoring should be made publicly available.
	The European Commission and national regulatory authorities shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.

Amendment 689

Seán Kelly Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	1. The European Commission and National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. Real levels of quality of service should be monitored on an ongoing basis, including, inter alia, the testing internet speeds and quality of service for individual applications or for categories of applications, as necessary, as well as for specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.

Justification:
It is important to have a continuous monitoring of the quality of service of the internet, including the regular assessment of internet speeds so that the vast majority of users can benefit from an ever improving internet and that such innovations as are likely to happen in the coming years are not siphoned off into specialised or premium services.

Amendment 690

Giles Chichester Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	1. In exercising their powers under Article 30a with respect to Article 23, national regulatory authorities shall closely monitor the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology. National regulatory authorities shall publish reports on a regular basis regarding their monitoring and findings, and provide those reports to the Commission and BEREC.

Justification:
Cultural diversity is not a legal concept, nor is it objectively measurable in a consistent way across Member States, and it is not matched to any power that NRAs could rely on to address any concerns they might identify.

Amendment 691

Petra Kammerevert Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(1) National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	(1) National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the rights provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of open internet access services, within the meaning of Article 2(2)(14), that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on freedom of opinion and information, linguistic and cultural diversity, media freedom and diversity, and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.

Amendment 692

Angelika Niebler Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(1) National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	(1) National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on linguistic and cultural diversity, freedom of opinion and information, media pluralism and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.

Amendment 693

Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity, competition and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall publish reports regarding their monitoring and findings on an annual basis and submit them to the Commission and BEREC.

Justification:
It should be monitored how specialised services increase competition on the market. Those reports should be accessible to the public.

Amendment 694

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services in accordance with the principle of net neutrality and at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.

Amendment 695

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 24 – paragraph 1
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.	1. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to benefit from the freedoms provided for in Article 23 (1) and (2), compliance with Article 23 (5), and the continued availability of non-discriminatory internet access services at levels of quality that reflect advances in technology and that are not impaired by specialised services. They shall, in cooperation with other competent national authorities, also monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural and linguistic diversity, media freedom and plurality and innovation. National regulatory authorities shall report on an annual basis to the Commission and BEREC on their monitoring and findings.

Amendment 696

Petra Kammerevert Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	(1a) Providers of public electronic communications services shall be obliged to document, and to report without delay to the competent national regulatory authority, all occurrences of the exceptional circumstances provided for in Article 23(5) and all traffic management measures taken in each case.

Amendment 697

Marietje Schaake, Nadja Hirsch Article 24 – paragraph 1 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	1a. National regulatory authorities shall establish clear and comprehensible notification and redress mechanisms for end-users subjected to discrimination, restriction, interference, blocking or throttling of online content, services or applications.

Amendment 698

Petra Kammerevert Article 24 – paragraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(2) In order to prevent the general impairment of quality of service for internet access services or to safeguard the ability of end-users to access and distribute content or information or to run applications and services of their choice, national regulatory authorities shall have the power to impose minimum quality of service requirements on providers of electronic communications to the public.	deleted
National regulatory authorities shall, in good time before imposing any such requirements, provide the Commission with a summary of the grounds for action, the envisaged requirements and the proposed course of action. This information shall also be made available to BEREC. The Commission may, having examined such information, make comments or recommendations thereupon, in particular to ensure that the envisaged requirements do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. The envisaged requirements shall not be adopted during a period of two months from the receipt of complete information by the Commission unless otherwise agreed between the Commission and the national regulatory authority, or the Commission has informed the national regulatory authority of a shortened examination period, or the Commission has made comments or recommendations. National regulatory authorities shall take the utmost account of the Commission’s comments or recommendations and shall communicate the adopted requirements to the Commission and BEREC.

Amendment 699

Sabine Verheyen Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
National regulatory authorities shall, in good time before imposing any such requirements, provide the Commission with a summary of the grounds for action, the envisaged requirements and the proposed course of action. This information shall also be made available to BEREC. The Commission may, having examined such information, make comments or recommendations thereupon, in particular to ensure that the envisaged requirements do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. The envisaged requirements shall not be adopted during a period of two months from the receipt of complete information by the Commission unless otherwise agreed between the Commission and the national regulatory authority, or the Commission has informed the national regulatory authority of a shortened examination period, or the Commission has made comments or recommendations. National regulatory authorities shall take the utmost account of the Commission's comments or recommendations and shall communicate the adopted requirements to the Commission and BEREC.	National regulatory authorities shall, in good time before imposing any such requirements, provide the Commission with a summary of the grounds for action, the envisaged requirements and the proposed course of action. This information shall also be made available to BEREC. The Commission may, having examined such information, make comments or recommendations thereupon, in particular to ensure that the envisaged requirements do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. National regulatory authorities shall take the utmost account of the Commission's comments or recommendations and shall communicate the adopted requirements to the Commission and BEREC. BEREC shall lay down and develop general guidelines for the application of reasonable traffic management in close cooperation with the Commission and all stakeholders on the basis of Article 23 and this Article.

Amendment 700

Jean-Pierre Audy Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
National regulatory authorities shall, in good time before imposing any such requirements, provide the Commission with a summary of the grounds for action, the envisaged requirements and the proposed course of action. This information shall also be made available to BEREC. The Commission may, having examined such information, make comments or recommendations thereupon, in particular to ensure that the envisaged requirements do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. The envisaged requirements shall not be adopted during a period of two months from the receipt of complete information by the Commission unless otherwise agreed between the Commission and the national regulatory authority, or the Commission has informed the national regulatory authority of a shortened examination period, or the Commission has made comments or recommendations. National regulatory authorities shall take the utmost account of the Commission's comments or recommendations and shall communicate the adopted requirements to the Commission and BEREC.	National regulatory authorities shall, in good time before imposing any such requirements, consult with providers of electronic communications to the public before providing the Commission with a summary of the grounds for action, the envisaged requirements and the proposed course of action. This information shall also be made available to BEREC. The Commission may, having examined such information, make comments or recommendations thereupon, in particular to ensure that the envisaged requirements do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. The envisaged requirements shall not be adopted during a period of two months from the receipt of complete information by the Commission unless otherwise agreed between the Commission and the national regulatory authority, or the Commission has informed the national regulatory authority of a shortened examination period, or the Commission has made comments or recommendations. National regulatory authorities shall take the utmost account of the Commission's comments or recommendations and shall communicate the adopted requirements to the Commission and BEREC.

Amendment 701

Sabine Verheyen Article 24 – paragraph 2 – subparagraph 2 a (new)
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
	National regulatory authorities shall put in place appropriate complaint procedures for issues regarding the performance of internet access service for end-users and providers of content, applications and services.

Amendment 702

Sabine Verheyen Article 24 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The Commission may adopt implementing acts defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).	deleted

Amendment 703

Giles Chichester Article 24 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The Commission may adopt implementing acts defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).	3. BEREC shall, after consulting stakeholders and in cooperation with the Commission, lay down guidelines defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).

Amendment 704

Silvia-Adriana Ţicău Article 24 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
(3) The Commission may adopt implementing acts defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).	(3) The Commission may adopt delegated acts defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with Article 32.

Amendment 705

Róża Gräfin von Thun und Hohenstein Article 24 – paragraph 3
Text proposed by the Commission	Amendment
3. The Commission may adopt implementing acts defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).	3. The Commission shall, after consulting BEREC, adopt implementing acts defining uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article. Those implementing acts shall be adopted in accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 33 (2).

Justification:
Uniform application needed.