NNSquad - Network Neutrality Squad
[ NNSquad ] [Fwd: consultazione della Commissione Europea sull Net neutrality]
A public consultation on net neutrality will be launched in EU before
this summer.
----
Neelie Kroes
Vice President of the European Commission Commissioner for the Digital
Agenda
Net neutrality in Europe
Address at the ARCEP Conference (L'Autorità de RÃgulation des
Communications Electroniques et des Postes)
Paris, 13th April 2010
Ladies and gentlemen,
Net neutrality is a subject that stirs emotions. Everyone has an opinion
and, so far, this has not led to an agreement on what net neutrality
actually means.
Issues
As such, I think it is worth revisiting briefly some of the fears,
demands and choices that exist in this debate.
The fears are numerous, and are not limited to technical issues. They
range from 'Big Brother' concerns about government censorship through to
broad questions about who should govern the internet as it becomes ever
more complex. Some worry that an increasingly commercial internet, and
increasingly congested networks, will afford no space the next time
demonstrators for democracy in countries such as Iran try to use digital
technology to communicate their efforts and sacrifices to the world.
On the other hand, with user needs multiplying and traffic growing,
every telecoms operator I meet has a demand. Many want to have the
possibility to charge a form of rent to content providers for what they
see as extensive use of their networks. And they want to be able to
offer differentiated levels of service to their customers  as we
already see in many markets with different classes and routes of travel
such as planes and trains.
All parties are passionate in their view. This does not mean there are
clear answers, but it suggests that each party knows that the internet
is not an inherently neutral platform; that there are choices to be made.
Choices like:
*
Should internet providers be allowed to prioritise one kind of
internet usage of another? (for instance delaying peer-to-peer
applications). And should they be able to charge for that?
*
Are transparency rules on traffic management sufficient to solve
possible issues?
*
Would the bottlenecks and other problems disappear if we manage to
foster investment in new and open networks?
*
Would regulation promoting more infrastructure competition be
reason enough to bring a lighter touch to net neutrality?
You can see it is a complex set of choices. What is more, some of the
choices are closely related to issues like the delivery and regulation
of new very-fast internet and efficient spectrum management.
The consequences of such choices are by no means yet clear. But with the
internet transforming every part of life, the consequences of our
choices will be significant. High speed access, quality, affordability,
innovation, competition, more generally our democracy  these may all be
affected by how this debate progresses.
This debate is still at an early stage in Europe. This is probably
because our regulatory framework and the competitive investments that it
fostered meant that we have not been so immediately confronted with
these tough choices as in some other jurisdictions. Of course, we need
to anticipate potential problems. However, as we do so, we must also
avoid over-hasty regulatory intervention.
Reflecting on the more advanced debate in the United States might help
us to make progress on our own debate. In 2005, the Federal
Communication Commission (FCC) of the United States outlined four
principles to encourage broadband deployment and preserve the open and
interconnected nature of the public internet. These were rights for
consumers: to access lawful internet content of their choice; to run
applications and services of their choice, to connect devices of their
choice and to have competition.
I can fully subscribe to these principles.
Moreover, the FCC is now proposing two additional principles, concerning
non-discrimination and transparency. While the importance of increased
transparency is clear, the real meaning and consequences of the
non-discrimination principle should be carefully considered.
In fact, some are interpreting the non-discrimination principle as
essentially preventing telecom operators from seeking commercial
payments or agreements with content providers which deliver their highly
capacity-consuming services through broadband networks and require a
certain level of service for their transmission to be effective. That
prospect raises a number of delicate and complex issues. These issues
must be very carefully assessed before the EU gives any possible
regulatory response.
Europe's new regulatory framework
Turning now to the EU's new regulatory framework adopted in 2009, it is
useful to underline a couple of points which are relevant for our debate.
First, under the new framework, National Regulatory Authorities are
required to promote Âthe ability of end-users to access and distribute
information or run applications and services of their choiceÂ. This sets
a very important principle for net neutrality, as it recognises and
safeguards the basic freedoms of internet users.
Secondly, our new framework explicitly foresees the possibility for
National Regulatory Authorities, after consulting the Commission, to set
minimum quality of service requirements if there is a problem. This
should ensure that traffic management and possible prioritisation does
not lead to degradation of content and services provided by
non-commercial actors or by new entrants. In that respect, I would also
like to underline that we are developing a strong broadband policy to
promote, in particular, investment in new generation networks which will
allow the provision of very high quality services. Furthermore we have
launched a public consultation on universal service which addresses the
question of whether universal service has a role in advancing broadband
coverage.
Thirdly, our new framework provides strong transparency measures to
ensure consumers understand and get what they pay for. I think too many
consumers currently feel cheated, for example when they get internet
speeds far lower than advertised. Transparency is therefore essential.
For instance, consumers should be clearly informed of the traffic
management systems that are in place and should be able to choose their
providers taking this into account.
These are not issues up for discussion, but clear rules already agreed
and adopted. I will be vigilant to ensure that they are correctly
transposed and implemented by the EU's Member States.
Next steps
The EU's revised telecoms rules will be complemented by our forthcoming
NGA Recommendation and Spectrum Policy, both of which will foster
investment in efficient and open networks.
Together this provides a good framework to deal with net neutrality
issues. Therefore, in my opinion, any further regulatory intervention
should be duly justified by the need to tackle specific problems which
could possibly emerge.
To this end, the Commission is carefully monitoring the impact of market
and technological developments on net neutrality and will report to the
European Parliament and the Council by the end of the year.
The Commission will hear all interested stakeholders and I can announce
my intention to launch a public consultation before the summer, in order
to progress Europe's net neutrality debate. In that context, I am
encouraged by the fact the BEREC already has a project team working on
these issues and I look forward to that useful input.
Principles I bring to the table
Let me now explain the principles I myself will use to examine the
technical and political issues raised in this debate.
My first general principle is not to make assumptions. I do not make the
assumption that one side or another should prevail in this debate, or
even that further Commission intervention is required.
I think that we should avoid giving rushed answers before having
carefully examined the potential problems, if any, and the more
appropriate and proportionate solutions. In particular, I think that we
should avoid taking unnecessary measures which may hinder new efficient
business models from emerging.
Given that so much of this debate is about different forms of traffic
management, let me use a road traffic analogy. There are many ways to
manage traffic: by improving infrastructure, adding tolls, creating
junctions or roundabouts to improve bottlenecks. But creating new rules
and crowding the street with signs does not automatically help the
traffic to flow. Indeed, putting a police officer at a busy corner can
often deliver the slowest traffic of all.
So, I will not be someone who comes up with a solution first and then
looks for a problem to attach it to. I am not a police officer in search
of a busy corner.
More specifically I will respect the following principles:
1. Freedom of expression is fundamental
I will not support any outcome that puts into danger freedom of expression.
2. Transparency is non-negotiable
This is already addressed in the new regulatory framework, but the
principle is worth re-stating: in a complex system like the internet, it
must be crystal clear what the practices of operators controlling the
network mean for all users, including consumers.
3. We need investment in efficient and open networks
We have to adopt clear regulatory measures to foster investment in new
efficient and open networks. Deploying such networks and promoting
infrastructure competition may be the best way to avoid bottlenecks and
monopolistic gatekeepers, thereby ensuring net neutrality.
4. Fair competition
Every player on the value chain should be free to fairly position
themselves to offer the best possible service to their customers or end
users. Any commercial or traffic management practice that does not
follow objective and even-handed criteria, applicable to all comparable
services, is potentially discriminatory in character. Discrimination
against undesired competitors (for instance, those providing Voice over
the Internet services) should not be allowed.
5. Support for innovation
There must be opportunities for new efficient business models and
innovative businesses. And over time, we should continue to monitor
whether traffic management is a spur to future network investment, and
not a means of exploiting current network constraints.
Conclusions
It may sound obvious, but my primary concern is to strike the right
balance between the parties concerned.
First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute the
content, services and applications they want. While content providers
and network operators should have the right incentives and opportunities
to keep investing, competing and innovating. And everyone deserves
certainty about how this world will take shape.
On that note, I wish you well for the rest of your discussions here
today and look forward to your constructive input.
--
blog.quintarelli.it
www.eximia.it
www.reeplay.it