Recommended Posts

European Commissioner for Digital Agenda Neelie Kroes has stated that it should be up to ISPs to decide how they manage their traffic, essentially admitting that Net Neutrality wouldn?t become part of EU legislation.

Without appropriate laws, network operators will be able to offer cheaper, ?tiered? Internet connections with limited capabilities, alongside full strength Internet services. Before taking responsibility for the EU Digital Agenda, Kroes insisted that ISPs should be regulated in order to ensure that companies are not limiting access to online content ?out of commercial motivation?, but critics say she has now backtracked.

Change of Heart

According to the principles of Net Neutrality that emerged in the early 2000s, ISPs and governments should treat all data on the Internet equally, not discriminating or charging differently depending on the user, content, site, platform or application.

The European Commission had launched a second consultation on the subject in July 2012, after the first investigation found that many European telecommunication providers are already limiting some of their services. According to the Body of European Regulators of European Communications (BEREC), the most frequently reported restriction was the blocking or throttling of peer-to-peer traffic on both fixed and mobile networks.

Last year, the Netherlands became the first European country to pass Net Neutrality legislation. The principles have also been officially adopted by Chile and Japan. It was previously thought that the EC consultation could result in a similar law being introduced across Europe. However, it seems that in the last few years, Kroes had a change of heart.

?The public interest does not, in my view, preclude consumers from subscribing to more differentiated, limited internet offers, possibly for a lower price,? she wrote in the French newspaper Lib?ration on Wednesday.

?Consumers need effective choice on the type of Internet subscription they sign up to. That means real clarity, in non-technical language. About effective speeds in normal conditions, and about any restrictions imposed on traffic ? and a realistic option to switch to a ?full? service, without such restrictions, offered by their own provider or another,? explained the Commissioner.

?Make no mistake: I am in favour of an open Internet and maximum choice. That must be protected. But you don?t need me, or the EU, telling you what sort of Internet services you must pay for,? she added.

What this means is that in the future, full and unrestricted access to the Internet could become the prerogative of the rich. However, Kroes? office told TechWeekEurope that the whole Net Neutrality issue was ?a storm in a tea cup?, and the European Commissioner was simply suggesting that ?people should make informed choices, and know the consequences of their choices when it comes to the Internet economy?.

Commercial Interest

French Internet freedom campaigners at La Quadrature Du Net are of a different opinion. ?Ms. Kroes supports the creation of a fragmented Internet, banning innovation and opening the door to unacceptable censorship,? states the organisation on its website.

?By deliberately ignoring that such [restricted] offers would change almost nothing for operators in terms of cost, but would allow them to avoid investing in the development of network capacity while restraining possibilities for citizen participation, Neelie Kroes takes into account only short-term private interests that run contrary to public interest.

?EU Commission representatives must urgently take strong measures to prevent telecom operators from controlling or censoring communications in order to protect citizens? fundamental freedoms,? suggests the organisation.

Net Neutrality was an important subject for Aaron Swartz - Internet freedom activist, co-creator of RSS feed format and co-founder of Reddit social news platform, who tragically took his own life last Friday. Other notable supporters of this movement include the ?father of the Internet? Vinton Cerf and inventor of the Web Sir Tim Berners-Lee.

Source: TechWeekEurope

Really don't need to read all the lines to ensure rage and build up even more by spending more time on this.

What a poor take and definitely interesting after the ITU meeting in Dubai that seemed like a meeting that's mainly about finding out just how much you can sell your people without them being too mad about it.

Poor poor ISPs... Shoveling millions, of course we need to make their lives easier screwing us over. :rolleyes:

Glassed Silver:mac

Ah **** the EU, britain needs out of that scummy corrupt organisation that hasn't been able to make its books add up properly for over 18 years, corrupt to the core.

Westminster hasn't exactly been setting a shining example with their technology policy...

This isn't an EU thing, it's a politics thing in general.

  • Like 1

Westminster hasn't exactly been setting a shining example with their technology policy...

This isn't an EU thing, it's a politics thing in general.

May I add lobbying to the list?

Glassed Silver:mac

This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Posts

    • Excuse me for having an opinion, fella'... (Why am I not surprised?...) Congrats on your very informative post however...
    • By the sounds of that wall of Fox News propaganda gibberish attacking the Democratic Party you've already had plenty of "juices" flowing this morning. You've ruined what could have been a productive comment thread.
    • (Topic to get the juices flowing this Sunday morning!...) Actually, the situation has almost nothing to do with "lack of skills", especially since assembly-line skills can be taught to anyone, including Americans, certainly. Rather, the inadequacy-to-impossibility of large-scale tech manufacturing in America today, and the reasons why America finds tech manufacturing completely onerous in the 21st century, has to do with politically driven laws amid a plethora of non-scientific, utterly politicized "science-fact" that is patently false, punitive business taxation at every turn, an array of judicial fines of unimaginable scope and complexity, and, last but not least, American unionization strictures that serve to actually slay job creation and hobble all such manufacturing endeavors in America before they can get off the ground. Globalism emerged, they tell us, as the needed answer to American hubris and an unholy American drive to excel. Unless one is buried under mounds of political propaganda, it's easy to see the absurdity of labeling the employees of SpaceX, for instance, as "unskilled labor"... Etc. ad infinitum. At one time in the recent past, American manufacturing prowess was the envy of the world in a wide variety of technical fields! The current federal and state government roadblocks against America becoming competitive globally in tech manufacturing are considerable, it's true, as anyone with a working brain knows. But remarkably, that is only half the story! The other half of the story is, of course, the corporations themselves... Chinese tech manufacturing is simply unassailable in terms of profits, because the Chinese government wants to see its tech manufacturing second-to-none globally so that no companies/nations can compete in terms of ROI, and China has completely succeeded in that goal. Let's tic-off a few things: *Chinese tariff policies are set according to what is considered best for Chinese business, Chinese employees, and the Chinese people. Huge difference with how things are done with tariffs in the US--as the US government (SCOTUS in this case, Congress in others) plainly feels that tariffs are "unfair" for the limited number of citizens who may pay them, whereas nothing is "unfair" when Congress considers the Personal Income Tax rates to be infinitely hike-able, along with infinitely enlarging annual budget deficits. *The Chinese government boldly subsidizes Chinese companies to artificially amplify their profits. *The Chinese government deliberately refuses to avidly demonize Chinese businesses and does not consider Chinese businesses "the enemy", so very unlike American (D)s these days. *Chinese labor laws and businesses are allowed to set their own labor policies according to what Chinese companies consider is best for companies and their employees... Simply put, American workers in tech manufacturing are not allowed to set their own labor policies! It is the height of hypocrisy for Americans to decry working conditions in China while simultaneously ensuring that American products are manufactured in China, not in the US, simply to maximize profits. There is nothing wrong with making a profit, of course, absolutely nothing. But there is plenty wrong with attempts to normalize hypocrisy of this kind! But rank hypocrisy and the (D) party in the US are longtime bedfellows... The current government in Washington is working overtime to see if it can toss out the horribly poor, failed economic policies of the past, while the (D)s still in Washington work very hard to bring back the stupidity whenever possible. With the right policies in place, America can be an infinitely competitive manufacturer.
  • Recent Achievements

    • Conversation Starter
      jessse3334 earned a badge
      Conversation Starter
    • Reacting Well
      JuvenileDelinquent earned a badge
      Reacting Well
    • One Month Later
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Week One Done
      Excellence2025 earned a badge
      Week One Done
    • Week One Done
      flexorcist earned a badge
      Week One Done
  • Popular Contributors

    1. 1
      +primortal
      508
    2. 2
      +Edouard
      198
    3. 3
      PsYcHoKiLLa
      152
    4. 4
      Steven P.
      73
    5. 5
      FloatingFatMan
      64
  • Tell a friend

    Love Neowin? Tell a friend!