EU Rules Says No to Net Neutrality Rules

April 19, 2011 -

The European Commission has decided that it will not pass legislation that makes Net Neutrality principles a matter of law. Instead they said that they would rely on existing law, media coverage outing unfair practices by the telecommunications industry and consumer complaints.

"I am determined to ensure that citizens and businesses in the EU can enjoy the benefits of an open and neutral internet, without hidden restrictions and at the speeds promised by their service providers," said Neelie Kroes, vice president of the European Commission for the Digital Agenda. "I am a firm believer in the principles of competition, which are at the core of the new enhanced telecom rules on transparency, quality of service and the ability to easily switch operators."

The EU report said that there was a general consensus that traffic management is necessary to ensure the smooth flow of Internet traffic. The Commission said it and the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) would continue to monitor the sector and publish a year-end report.

"[If the report's] findings and other feedback indicate outstanding problems, the Commission will assess the need for more stringent measures."

Consumer advocates railed against the decision.

"Ms. Kroes is hiding behind false free-market arguments to do nothing at all," said Jeremie Zimmerman, a spokesman for French digital civil liberties group La Quadrature du Net.

Source: DigitalMediaWire


Comments

Re: EU Rules Says No to Net Neutrality Rules

Wow.  It's a common-sense approach, without a complete knee-jerk reaction.  In Europe, of all places.

What I don't quite understand is why this approach is being taken in the EU, and not in the United States, considering the problems that prompted the idea of the FCC trying to reclassify it's own mandate were happening far more often in EU countries than in the United States.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: EU Rules Says No to Net Neutrality Rules

The EU has actual competition in the broadband market.

Re: EU Rules Says No to Net Neutrality Rules

True, but that doesn't address my underlying point - even WITH competition, most of the problems that make people cry for NN (such as throttling down of connections for nothing more than heavy use) are much more commonplace in the EU than the US, yet the EU is taking a much more common-sense approach to NN.

I find that kind of mind-boggling.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: EU Rules Says No to Net Neutrality Rules

As was said, the competitive landscape is different.... depending on the region, consumers can either (a) go to another provider or (b) the local provider is government owned anyway.

In general the US has neither, so our situation is different.   Yes there are abuses the the EU, but people can actually DO something about them.  Here.. when Comcast decides it doesn't want Netflix to compete with its own services and degrades one's ability to use Netflix streaming, the chances of having a viable alternative are pretty low.

Granted, those 'government monopoly' ISPs are another reason NN got shot down in the EU. Governments are not interested in passing restrictions on themselves, so they lobbied to make sure the rules were not put in place.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Goth_Skunk"The New Totalitarians Are Here" from The Federalist. http://ow.ly/Pjz3b07/07/2015 - 11:31pm
MattsworknameThere was a time in america when we needed unions and they served a good purpose, but that time hasnt been tbe case for about 20 years or more. The same could be said of our current system for teachers in higher educatoin,but thats a whole nother story07/07/2015 - 10:22pm
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
james_fudgeCharity starts at home ;)07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
james_fudgeSo mandatory charity? That sounds shitty to me07/07/2015 - 2:49pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, if Union dues are automatically withdrawn, then there is no such thing as a non-union employee.07/07/2015 - 2:38pm
Goth_Skunka mutually agreed upon charity instead.07/07/2015 - 2:33pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician