Surprise! European Union Adopts Net Neutrality Guidelines That Don't Suck

from the actually-listening-to-the-people dept

Wed, Aug 31st 2016 3:31am — Karl Bode

As we noted last October, the European Union passed net neutrality rules that not only don't really protect net neutrality, but actually give ISPs across the EU member countries the green light to violate net neutrality consistently -- just as long as ISPs are relatively clever about it. Just like the original, overturned 2010 net neutrality rules in the States, Europe's new rules (which took effect April 30) are packed with all manner of loopholes giving exemption for "specialized services" and "class-based discrimination," as well as giving the green light for zero rating.

Fortunately, the European Union's Body of European Regulators of Electronic Communications (BEREC) has been cooking up new guidelines to help European countries interpret and adopt the new rules. Under heavy pressure from net neutrality advocates overseas, the BEREC's final guidelines have been published and they're notably better than many people predicted. Much of the worst-offending loophole language has been trimmed back, despite earlier threats by European wireless providers that they'd withhold fifth-generation (5G) upgrades if the guidelines toughened up the rules (a common, empty bluff in telecom).

Much of the worrying language carving out tractor-trailer-sized loopholes for "specialized services," or "class-based discrimination," has been either pared back or clarified. The guidelines also strongly encourage EU member state governments to avoid letting ISPs block users looking to use their wireless phones as modems (aka "tethering"). BEREC also comes down harder on exempting some content from usage caps (aka "zero rating"), because as we're seeing in the states (where regulators are actively encouraging the practice) it can be very easily used to try and hinder services that compete with an ISPs own offerings:

"...The zero price applied to the data traffic of the zero-rated music application creates an economic incentive to use that music application instead of competing ones. The effects of such a practice applied to a specific application are more likely to “undermine the essence of the endusers' rights” or lead to circumstances where “end-users’ choice is materially reduced in practice” (Recital 7) than when it is applied to an entire category of applications.

While an indisputably big win for net neutrality advocates (this item saw the biggest public feedback in the history of BEREC consultations), these are still guidelines, and actual rules and enforcement may still vary significantly among EU member states. Upon initial read there's still numerous instances where bad behavior is still allowed if it's justified (often flimsily) by the ISP as necessary for network health and security, a concept we've seen consistently abused here in the States. The phantom congestion bogeyman has long been useful to justify anti-competitive behavior in telecom markets worldwide.

In short this is a promising step forward for European net neutrality advocates, but just as in the States, net neutrality advocates need to be wary of thinking the fight is over. These are just cornerstone victories in a battle that will never truly end thanks to incumbent ISPs that will never stop looking for new, creative ways to abuse the lack of competition the broadband last mile. The less broadband competition in a market, the more intense the fight.

6160-Berec-Guidelines-on-the-Implementation-B-0 (PDF)6160-Berec-Guidelines-on-the-Implementation-B-0 (Text)

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: broadband, eu, europe, net neutrality

7 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2016 @ 5:26am

unfortunately the door has still been left open for abuse by ISPs and you can bet they will find ways of doing that! giving them the option to throttle to be able to keep their networks working properly for everyone is a recipe for disaster with torrent traffic being hit the earliest and the hardest. i wonder how they are going to justify doing that, when businesses also use torrent to transfer big files great distances easily, but only hit the ordinary people?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2016 @ 6:48am

Re:
unfortunately the door has still been left open for abuse by ISPs and you can bet they will find ways of doing that!

There is always a door left open. It's always intentional, that is why they spend a lot of time creating labyrinthine rules.

But it will not stop the tools from cheering for more regulation.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2016 @ 7:03am

These are just cornerstone victories in a battle that will never truly end thanks to incumbent ISPs that will never stop looking for new, creative ways to abuse the lack of competition the broadband last mile

Not true everywhere, there are plenty of places with healthy competition on the last mile, at least were I live. This is especially true for fiber networks and god does it show in what you pay and for ISP behavior
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2016 @ 7:07am

Re:
No never mind that regulation was the cause of that MISSING competition.

Governments create problems then candidates campaign against them. They are no different than the IT tech that keeps breaking the printer so they have something to do to justify their jobs!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2016 @ 7:49am

Re: Re:
What is dem big Gov'ment you are talking about?

If you want a problem solved, point the finger at a target.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 31 Aug 2016 @ 8:28am

Re: Re: Re:
I did point the finger at a target, Government Regulation. That is the target.

A lot of peeps falsely accuse Capitalism as the problem. The only thing Capitalism means is that Business can be privately owned. If you hate that, then you think government should own the business. That means you will only ever GET what Government wants you to get... well because they fucking OWN IT!!!

History has proven that people are lazy and will not work to improve their lots in life. Yes there are numerous exceptions, but they are sure not the fucking majority! When you let the FEW interested people in Government run the operation you get the MANY being ruled by the FEW again, repeat ad nausea.

History proves that Capitalism and Free Market are the best "possible" tools. Sure capitalism and free market are not without flaws, but Regulation just "ensures" that you get everything that IS wrong with Capitalism/Free Market ideals in addition to, corrupt government interference or regulatory capture as some "pleasantly" call it.

Calls for regulation are literally calls to cause or exacerbate the very problem we are asking to be resolved!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Wendy Cockcroft, 2 Sep 2016 @ 5:59am

Re: Re: Re: Re:
Your argument fails on so many levels, the most egregious one being that there's no such thing as the free market.

As for Capitalism meaning only that businesses can be privately owned you haven't got a clue: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_capitalism

There's not a black-or-white choice between only capitalism or only socialism. The world is a bigger, more interesting place than that.

https://medium.com/@wendycockcroft/what-has-socialism-done-for-us-4a2d456ab5d0#.olabqxk4m
[ link to this | view in thread ]