What Exactly Does The EU Plan To Do On Net Neutrality?
from the confused?-you-will-be dept
There are few areas in tech policy where the waters are so muddied as those swirling around net neutrality. That's as true for the EU as it is for the US. The latest statement by the person responsible for this area in the European Commission, Neelie Kroes, does little to clarify things.
First, she addresses the issue of blocking and throttling:
Huge innovation can be found online: we must safeguard it for everyone. Currently too many Europeans find that services are blocked and throttled by their internet provider. I believe every European should have access to the full and open internet, absolutely guaranteed, without such discrimination. And so I am coming forward with new rules to bring such practices to an end once and for all.
That's clear enough. But Kroes goes on:
I agree that the Internet is an important platform for freedom of speech; and that is why I intend to guarantee access without restriction -- the first ever time such a guarantee exists across Europe. But permitting premium services does not in any way restrict that freedom. For almost any kind of product you care to name -- from postal services to the petrol in your car -- having premium products hardly diminishes freedom for users: if anything it offers them more choices. If you decide not to pay that extra premium, of course, you still deserve a good product: and under my proposals, the "best-efforts" Internet will get better.
It's not at all obvious how "premium products" will magically boost the "best-efforts" Internet. On the contrary: if companies are allowed to pay for their IP packets to be given priority over "best-efforts" services, this will result in the latter be pushed into the Internet's slow lane. Net neutrality will be dead, and innovation threatened, because deep-pocketed incumbents will be able to promote their services at the expense of underfunded startups, or non-profit projects. Moreover, telecoms companies will have a perverse incentive to make that slow lane as bad as possible, in order to "encourage" people to pay for the "premium products" that offer a decent performance.
Kroes discusses the general issue of regulation:
if you aim to protect an open network, overregulation is exactly the wrong way to go. The fact is, many innovative new services depend on fast connections over IP networks. If you want to invest in (say) new videoconferencing equipment, an IP TV, or a new cloud computing contract, you will also want to know your connection will support it. If EU laws banned such quality guarantees, we would risk effectively outlawing many of those new services too.
Those in favor of net neutrality do not argue for "over-regulation"; instead, they want one very minimal rule: that all IP packets are treated equally for a given connection. If services need fast connections, then just upgrade the speed so that all applications benefit. Maybe that is what she means -- it's really not clear from her post -- but fast connections are not normally described as "premium products", and they are already available as part of most ISPs' standard offerings. So what exactly is the EU proposing to do here?
And for those who are worried about any kind of regulation, here's what someone who knows what he's talking about here -- Tim Berners-Lee -- said on the subject back in 2006, when net neutrality was under threat in the US:
Yes, regulation to keep the Internet open is regulation. And mostly, the Internet thrives on lack of regulation. But some basic values have to be preserved. For example, the market system depends on the rule that you can't photocopy money. Democracy depends on freedom of speech. Freedom of connection, with any application, to any party, is the fundamental social basis of the Internet, and, now, the society based on it.
Follow me @glynmoody on Twitter or identi.ca, and on Google+
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: eu, neelie kroes, net neutrality
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
In a nutshell (im shrinking the technical details of the debate down), whenever a network link on the internet gets overloaded, the response is to increase capacity. Historically, the person who is moving more data pays for the improvement. However, we are now in a position where Netflix and Google are sending more data to consumers then Netflix and Google will ever receive. And its not entirely their fault. ISPs (such as Verison and Time Warner Cable) provide all high speed access as Asynchronous, in this case meaning you can download faster then you can upload. The speed difference is 4-5x faster download speeds. So Even if Netflix's Internet provider had services the TWC customer wants, Netflix's IP will never have parity with TWC.
Now Netflix and Google provide a program to ISPs that put the equivalent of a server with the most commonly requested data in the core nodes for an ISP, reducing network load and significantly improving performance, but the big legacy Cable companies have refused, instead insisting that Netflix and Google pay the ISPs to deliver the content that the ISP's customers are paying for the ISP to deliver.
Without stronger net neutrality rules, This WILL continue. And it will impact all online services.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
My solution would be to have intervention at the physical links to those end-users. Have a government mandated fiber build-out, much like the telephone system in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Open these fiber links as leased lines that can be used by any provider, and let the market decide who has better service.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I remember lobbyists in America saying the same thing a few years ago over the Comcast Bittorrent blocking scandal.
The lobbyist said that Doctor's needed higher internet priority, because they needed to perform remote surgeries and that the patient might die due to network lag.
I'm serious, this was their argument to kill net neutrality in America a few years ago.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dennis Barr
Perhaps it's time to realize that the "free" internet model - as in free of charge - is a disaster waiting to happen.
I suspect that this is not going to happen, though. We've become too accustomed to getting something - generally good, but potentially very, very bad - for nothing. Who will persuade us to give that up? What kind of event will it take to abandon something that's so immediately gratifying? ... the sound of crickets ...
http://www.itworld.com/security/366872/black-hat-ad-networks-lay-path-million-strong-browser-bo tnet
This mother fucker has some serious issues.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Erm, I pay for my internet connection as do the vast majority of other people.
That's a pretty dumb comment that doesn't even have a basis in truth. I suspect he's (badly) arguing that websites should not be free to access, but they're quite happy to lock themselves behind paywalls if they wish. Just don't come whining when people find alternative sources that don't charge a direct toll.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Premium Internet: Higher Bandwith.
No matter which gasoline you pump, you can still access the same roads.
No matter which Internet you get, you can still access the same information.
Basic Internet: 10 Mb/s
Premium Internet: 100 Mb/s
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Investment is what boosts the best efforts internet
"It's not at all obvious how "premium products" will magically boost the "best-efforts" Internet."
There is no magic boost. It's a decidely non magic boost called private investment in new and faster networks. Investments that can't happen if companies don't have any way to gain revenue.
Sector revenues are declining and demand for data is growing, this is creating an investment gap that is already damaging the ability of Europeans to access mobile broadband and we'll see the problem spread to fixed too if we don't change the situation.
There are no free lunches, someone has to pay for this ... And extreme interpretations of net neutrality, which seek to spread mistruths about Kroes' intentions to protect the open internet and net neturality do not help us improve the best-efforts internet.
The policy we have is clear and we are proud of it.
We welcome input that can help us do it better, but we don't welcome the input of those (not saying this includes Glyn!) just trying to trash our efforts to deal with a complex issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Investment is what boosts the best efforts internet
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Packet Prioritization (also called Quality of Service) gives certain network traffic a higher priority on congested networks, and slows some internet traffic down, while allowing higher prioritized traffic to flow at normal speed.
If congestion is an issue, then the network needs to be upgraded. Packet Prioritization is a 'temporary' congestion fix, not a permanent fix.
I can't believe someone made the statement "Someone has to pay a premium to fund network upgrades". This is simply false.
All business and residential customers have been paying their bills month after month. If ISP's can't upgrade their networks, then either someone is skimming too much profits off the top, or the ISP isn't properly managing their finances and deserves to go out of business, so a more financially competent company can take over and place it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
There are other options out there, you can pay for a dark fiber run to the nearest IX. You can pay Level 3, Cogent, Hurricane Electric, etc for port, bandwidth and a cross connect. I have never heard of a Tier 1 ISP ever doing any sort of shaping, unless of course it's a requested service like MPLS. If you really are against all QoS and oversubscribing, then your only option is to become your own provider. Traffic shaping is a tool and a very necessary one at that, even imho on your personal home network.
When QoS fails is when they differentiate services, or purposely use peering disputes to disrupt internet traffic to specific parties.
After you come back with a few price quotes, than you can tell me about the price you are paying for that QoS, oversubscribed network.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]