EU just ended Net Neutrality (oops)

Overheal

Important for all EU internet users:

http://gizmodo.com/the-eu-tried-to-end-roaming-fees-and-ended-net-neutrali-1738918545

The internet is a global network. That means if one part of the world decides to start pulling the wrong levers, we could be dealing with the consequences. And the European parliament just pulled a very big lever by voting down amendments to net neutrality rules that include dangerous loopholes.
The European Union’s net neutrality rules are wrapped in a bundle of seemingly well-intentioned regulations that will do good things like ban roaming charges. However, the net neutrality debate ended up siding with the interest of big telecom companies. Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) today voted in favor of the new rules—and all of the awful loopholes they allow. The saddest part of the whole ordeal is that only 50 MEPs out of 751 bothered to show up for the debate.
Now about those loopholes. What makes them so worrisome is the simple fact that they’ll allow exceptions to the principle of net neutrality, which folks like world wide web inventor Tim Berners Lee insist is the best way to preserve a free and open internet. The Guardian explains the various loopholes concisely:
Advertisement

Among the exceptions opposed by net neutrality supporters is one which allows providers to offer priority to “specialised services”, providing they still treat the “open” internet equally. Many had seen the exception as allowing providers to offer an internet fast lane to paying sites, leading to the Italian government to propose removing the exception from the draft regulations.

So fast lanes are okay as long as the rest of the internet is open. That’s like saying assault is okay as long as you’re not violent most of the time. What other crazy ideas are in this hugely important piece of legislation? Here’s the Guardian again:

A different exception is aimed at situations where the limitation is not speed, but data usage. The EU’s regulations allow “zero rating”, a practice whereby certain sites or applications are not counted against data limits. That gives those sites a specific advantage when dealing with users with strict data caps such as those on mobile internet. The new regulations allow national regulators to decide whether or not to allow zero rating in their own country.

This is a lot like Mark Zuckerberg secretly sinister plan to create an internet for poor people: Internet.org. So Facebook could pay lobbyists to convince the government of a European nation to give it a zero rating. It’s been clear for a while that Zuck and company don’t understand net neutrality. Now it’s obvious that lawmakers in Europe don’t get it either.
Sponsored




The Guardian saved the best exception for last:

Other exceptions include an allowance for ISPs to predict periods of peak demand and introduce “reasonable traffic management measures”, and to group some services into traffic “classes”, which can be sped up or slowed down at will.

In other words, just go ahead and create a caste system for internet traffic. That kind of approach has worked great for Europeans in the past.
It’s easy to feel like these rules don’t matter for non-Europeans. It will take at least six months for each EU country to begin adopting the new rules, and even then, it’s safe to say that different leaders will interpret the new regulations differently. Nevertheless, once it’s all in place there will be reverberations throughout the world.
It seems likely that anti-net neutrality lawmakers in the United States and other countries will be able to use Europe’s disregard for the free internet as a precedent to argue for their own misguided rules. The good news is that the United States has a good plan to build a better internet. God knows we need it.
[The Guardian, Ars Technica, BBC]

Y'all screwed up, largely because the decision makers apparently lacked the understanding of how the internet works.

Mother Brain

Was only a matter of time before corporate interests dictated the direction the web would develop in future.

Sad but basically inevitable. Where there's more money to be squeezed out of people you can bet your backside you will be squeezed.

smash

I can imagine the future of internet in Ireland being like trying to pick your sky package.

Basic Package
- Google
- Bing

Social Package
- Facebook
- Twitter

Streaming Package
- Netflix
- Youtube

etc etc

seamus

Thread title is overstating it a bit.

What's been voted in is not yet regulations, and doesn't specifically allow for the loopholes stated, it just doesn't specifically rule them out.

Yes, it's a pretty big oversight, but there is still plenty of time to correct it, and doesn't actually spell an end to net neutrality unless the regulators and the entire EU apply the entire thing in entirely the wrong way.

Unlike the US where the FCC has effectively absolute power to define US-wide rules, it's not quite so simple in the EU. Ending net neutrality in France, for example, might do more harm for France than for the rest of the EU as other EU networks start isolating French networks and routing traffic around them to avoid their rules.

Overheal

smash wrote: »

I can imagine the future of internet in Ireland being like trying to pick your sky package.

Basic Package

- Google
- Bing

Social Package

- Facebook
- Twitter

Streaming Package

- Netflix
- Youtube

etc etc

Basically that's what the loopholes would allow, you'd buy your internet/data plan based on which sites and services were zero-limit (eg. ESPN/Sky Sports that doesn't apply to your data cap). Once you start throwing sites in to that like reddit for instance, you seriously impact the popularity of other sites, like boards.ie. Users would spend more time on sites that don't affect their data caps.

smash

Overheal wrote: »

Basically that's what the loopholes would allow, you'd buy your internet/data plan based on which sites and services were zero-limit (eg. ESPN/Sky Sports that doesn't apply to your data cap). Once you start throwing sites in to that like reddit for instance, you seriously impact the popularity of other sites, like boards.ie. Users would spend more time on sites that don't affect their data caps.

Then RTE player should be covered by our TV license!

Cee-Jay-Cee

I don't really understand the whole net neutrality thing but I'm guessing it'll be treated similar to many other EU regulations such as VRT and recent regulations governing Industrial
Action by police forces and be completely ignored by the Irish government. It seems to me that EU regulators are simply a bunch of wasters who introduce proposals and then get exorbitant expenses to travel to Brussels several times to debate and vote on it and then add a get out clause so it can be ignored if need be.

Overheal

I don't really understand the whole net neutrality thing

Net Neutrality is the Internet’s guiding principle: It preserves our right to communicate freely online. This is the definition of an open Internet.

Net Neutrality means an Internet that enables and protects free speech. It means that Internet service providers should provide us with open networks — and should not block or discriminate against any applications or content that ride over those networks. Just as your phone company shouldn't decide who you can call and what you say on that call, your ISP shouldn't be concerned with the content you view or post online.

Without Net Neutrality, cable and phone companies could carve the Internet into fast and slow lanes. An ISP could slow down its competitors' content or block political opinions it disagreed with. ISPs could charge extra fees to the few content companies that could afford to pay for preferential treatment — relegating everyone else to a slower tier of service. This would destroy the open Internet.

http://www.savetheinternet.com/net-neutrality-what-you-need-know-now

And, we've had examples where non-neutrality has been in effect, like when Verizon and Comcast racketeered Netflix into paying for unrestricted bandwidth: http://www.crossingbroad.com/2014/06/netflix-and-verizon-are-pissing-on-each-other.html that was during a period in the US's rules where loopholes existed for a short time, I believe these have since been closed due to widespread backlash (you did piss off most of America by ****ing with Netflix, after all)

mad muffin

What I never understood about these law makers. Doesn't it also affect them and their families?

They don't care that they too will be price gouged? Or is it that they get payed so much it doesn't t bother them? Are they not consumers too?

briany

You talk to most people about 'Net Neutrality' and they haven't the foggiest of what you're on about. As Overheal points out, if you want people to care, mention that it'll (possibly) affect their Netflix.

Eugene Norman

briany wrote: »

You talk to most people about 'Net Neutrality' and they haven't the foggiest of what you're on about. As Overheal points out, if you want people to care, mention that it'll (possibly) affect their Netflix.

A large number of Americans support getting rid of net netutrality because communism.

BMJD

Cannot be arsed reading this. Can I still view girls who forget to put clothes on?

NachoBusiness

Enough already with the autopsy. Is free pornography going to be under threat or not damn it??

Harry Palmr

The Guardian saved the best exception for last:
Other exceptions include an allowance for ISPs to predict periods of peak demand and introduce “reasonable traffic management measures”, and to group some services into traffic “classes”, which can be sped up or slowed down at will.

sound like my ISP contract!

This stuff is so arcane to so many its hardly a surprise the law of unintended consequences kicks in.

ancapailldorcha

I'm not too worried. As Seamus has said, there is still a lot of time to correct this. It's disconcerting that this was allowed to happen but given that we're talking about a basic freedom, I expect a lot of people would be willing to fight this if it even looks like going ahead.

Iwasfrozen

mad muffin wrote: »

What I never understood about these law makers. Doesn't it also affect them and their families?

They don't care that they too will be price gouged? Or is it that they get payed so much it doesn't t bother them? Are they not consumers too?

People who have risen to the top of their profession don't tend to spend much of their personal time on the web.

Overheal

mad muffin wrote: »

What I never understood about these law makers. Doesn't it also affect them and their families?

They don't care that they too will be price gouged? Or is it that they get payed so much it doesn't t bother them? Are they not consumers too?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Series_of_tubes

Ted Stevens (R-Alaska) was fortunately voted out in the 2008 general elections, but his legacy is the same, and many republicans have yet to really embrace technology though most display more knowledge of it now, in the "Oh no you did not just Tweet that" era. This was his argument on the Senate floor, rejecting an amendment that would have stopped ISPs from charging a premium for fast-lane content provision (2006):

"Ten movies streaming across that, that Internet, and what happens to your own personal Internet? I just the other day got… an Internet was sent by my staff at 10 o'clock in the morning on Friday. I got it yesterday [Tuesday]. Why? Because it got tangled up with all these things going on the Internet commercially.
[…] They want to deliver vast amounts of information over the Internet. And again, the Internet is not something that you just dump something on. It's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes. And if you don't understand, those tubes can be filled and if they are filled, when you put your message in, it gets in line and it's going to be delayed by anyone that puts into that tube enormous amounts of material, enormous amounts of material.[5]"

while I can't find any smoking gun that he got money from the ISPs (Trust me, ISPs donate millions every cycle, but the 10 year old contribution data is hard to come by) he was later indicted on some pretty spectacular corruption charges for not disclosing gifts: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Stevens#Controversies as well as deliberately writing law and approving contracts for his business partners, willfully exploiting Senate procedural loopholes:

In December 2003, the Los Angeles Times reported that Stevens had taken advantage of lax Senate rules to use his political influence to obtain a large amount of his personal wealth.[59] According to the article, while Stevens was already a millionaire "thanks to investments with businessmen who received government contracts or other benefits with his help," the lawmaker who is in charge of $800 billion a year, writes "preferences he wrote into law," from which he then benefits.[59]

AT&T themselves simultaneously pushed the narrative that "Net Neutrality" was a confusing term, hard to define, too complicated, etc. - until it suited them, then they whipped up the definition rather breathlessly: http://truth-out.org/buzzflash/commentary/att-concession-thoroughly-debunks-key-antinet-neutrality-myth/1226-att-concession-thoroughly-debunks-key-antinet-neutrality-myth (AT&T used it's merger agreement/neutrality commitment during the 2014 Net Neutrality issue to its advantage too: it claimed publicly that "AT&T will voluntarily enforce net neutrality no matter what the FCC decides" - without mentioning they were already obliged on paper to do so...)(AT&T is currently trying to merge now with DirecTV and is preparing to abide by even more NN rules to fast-track the approval)

In short though, politicians don't care, and they are getting filthy rich by not caring.

Eugene Norman wrote: »

A large number of Americans support getting rid of net netutrality because communism.

A large number will otherwise believe that "The Free Market" and "Capitalism" are being threatened by liberal "Net Neutrality." Fortunately anyone with access to said internet, usually filters through google who is an avid sponsor of Net Neutrality and not afraid to send unsolicited emails (specifically, Eric Schmidt) to its gmail users about the situations when they have arisen. Same with facebook and many other technologically forward-thinking sites.

Fleawuss

The corporatisation and subsequent monetisation of all our lives is very very annoying.

Mother Brain

To the people asking will pornography be affected, one possible (likely even?) scenario is that if net neutrality really goes away then you will find your regular free tube sites have been choked of bandwidth because they can't pay a large fee to the isp's.

Then you'll have the one big porn company that can afford the fees pays them, and then charges you to access their content and in part, to cover the cost of the fees they pay to the providers.

So it is quite possible indeed that free porn sites will become untenable / unusable because neutrality has been compromised. The tube sites operate on razor thin margins as it is and any significant growth in costs or decline in revenues due to fewer visitors is likely to send some of them under.

I only hope that if or when it happens that all the apathetic folk out there who dismissed all this as none of their concern enjoy jerking off to the sight of a swirling load icon.

TheDoc

Anyone know if our MEP's are attending these debates?

Might be worth lobbying them to ensure they are. Especially your man Flannigan who hardly turns up for anything.

Mother Brain

TheDoc wrote: »

Anyone know if our MEP's are attending these debates?

Might be worth lobbying them to ensure they are. Especially your man Flannigan who hardly turns up for anything.

I'm sorry, this isn't a snipe at you but Irish politicians hardly strike me as the most technically astute at the best of times. Probably not a lot they would be able to achieve.

Eugene Norman

Without net neutrality.

You pay money to your ISP to get 100Mb/s or whatever.
You pay money to Netflix to get their HD streaming option

Netflix and your ISP fall out, because NetFlix refuses to pay for extra bandwidth. So they throttle Netflix.

You get crap bandwidth from Netflix.

Clearly this is a disaster for consumers.

Some of the most damaging laws have been passed with a small percentage of politicians present. I don't understand how they can keep their job.. I'm more angered by 51 showing up than the actual bill.

braniganl

Here is a list of those who voted against it. Fine Gael (no surprises there): Mairead Mc Guinness, Sean Kelly, Brian Hayes, Deidre Clune, Independent : Nessa Childers, Marian Harkin. I'll be emailing them all and asking them what the reasoning was for their no votes. I'm aware that it's ignorance and/or lobbying backhanders, but have to try sure.

zeffabelli

Eugene Norman wrote: »

Without net neutrality.

You pay money to your ISP to get 100Mb/s or whatever.
You pay money to Netflix to get their HD streaming option

Netflix and your ISP fall out, because NetFlix refuses to pay for extra bandwidth. So they throttle Netflix.

You get crap bandwidth from Netflix.

Clearly this is a disaster for consumers.

Don't I already pay for this stuff?

Sorry I'm confused.

Mother Brain

zeffabelli wrote: »

Don't I already pay for this stuff?

Sorry I'm confused.

Exactly!

The problem arises when you, the consumer are caught up in a beef between two services you already pay for and suffer as a result.

Basically, if your internet provider decides to charge a fee to a service that separately charges you (i.e. Netflix), and they refuse, the internet provider can then throttle the bandwidth that service receives which means your Netflix service will suffer in quality regardless of what you pay because your internet provider is also their provider.

It's rotten to the core.

zeffabelli

Mother Brain wrote: »

Exactly!

The problem arises when you, the consumer are caught up in a beef between two services you already pay for and suffer as a result.

Basically, if your internet provider decides to charge a fee to a service that separately charges you (i.e. Netflix), and they refuse, the internet provider can then throttle the bandwidth that service receives which means your Netflix service will suffer in quality regardless of what you pay because your internet provider is also their provider.

It's rotten to the core.

Ah ok. So right now I'm paying for unlimited bandwidth. If I sign up to Netflix I pay for Netflix..., ok fine... But then my provider can charge me extra for using Netflix ?

Mother Brain

zeffabelli wrote: »

Ah ok. So right now I'm paying for unlimited bandwidth. If I sign up to Netflix I pay for Netflix..., ok fine... But then my provider can charge me extra for using Netflix ?

Well it depends on how they do it basically. This is still hypothetical.

What's probably more likely is that Netflix has to charge you more in order to factor in the cost of paying the fees to the provider.

As someone above pointed out it might also go down that providers end up offering different packages sort of like how the tv works where you pay x for a certain number of channels and additional or specialist channels are a higher price again like the movie or sports channels. Except that you are paying a premium for using Netflix or Youtube because they consume more bandwidth by streaming HD video.

Either way the consumer gets screwed and infrastructure providers / existing huge multinationals prosper.

The J Stands for Jay

braniganl wrote: »

Here is a list of those who voted against it. Fine Gael (no surprises there): Mairead Mc Guinness, Sean Kelly, Brian Hayes, Deidre Clune, Independent : Nessa Childers, Marian Harkin. I'll be emailing them all and asking them what the reasoning was for their no votes. I'm aware that it's ignorance and/or lobbying backhanders, but have to try sure.

I would like to think they voted against it because of the loopholes it contained that threaten net neutrality.

VinLieger

McGaggs wrote: »

I would like to think they voted against it because of the loopholes it contained that threaten net neutrality.

The loopholes would have been closed by the amendments they all voted against and because of their irresponsible voting now exist whereas before they did not, maybe go back and read up on this a bit more.

Akrasia

smash wrote: »

I can imagine the future of internet in Ireland being like trying to pick your sky package.

Basic Package
- Google
- Bing

Social Package
- Facebook
- Twitter

Streaming Package
- Netflix
- Youtube

etc etc

Which package gets me all you can eat porn?

Eugene Norman

zeffabelli wrote: »

Ah ok. So right now I'm paying for unlimited bandwidth. If I sign up to Netflix I pay for Netflix..., ok fine... But then my provider can charge me extra for using Netflix ?

The provider could do that. More likely the ISP would more likely try charge Netflix and if they don't pay the abscence of net neutrality would allow the ISP to throttle Netflix. They could also throttle dropbox while giving you a better cloud solution themselves. Or whatever. All bits would not the equal.

Akrasia

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not too worried. As Seamus has said, there is still a lot of time to correct this. It's disconcerting that this was allowed to happen but given that we're talking about a basic freedom, I expect a lot of people would be willing to fight this if it even looks like going ahead.

Yeah. The E.U. seems to be on the side of competitive markets. Why would they ban roaming charges on one hand, while conspiring to break the entire internet on the other.

There is still plenty of time to close these loopholes, and even if they aren't closed in time, they can be retrospectvely closed when it becomes obvious how important net neutrality actually is.

RandomName2

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

I'm not too worried. As Seamus has said, there is still a lot of time to correct this. It's disconcerting that this was allowed to happen but given that we're talking about a basic freedom, I expect a lot of people would be willing to fight this if it even looks like going ahead.

Yeah, but how? We have little or no say how the EU is run. Even if we elect an MP on a particular platform they are bound by party policy (both their own, and grouping) - and, as shown, might not even bother turning up (all aboard the gravy train: woo woo!). And outside the EU Parliament we have no say, at all. If the EU says net neutrality is over, you better believe that net-neutrality is over, brother.

smash

Akrasia wrote: »

Which package gets me all you can eat porn?

That would be the basic package plus €59.99 p/m discreetly listed on your bill as "DIY talk n' tips"

Harry Palmr

Mother Brain wrote: »

To the people asking will pornography be affected, one possible (likely even?) scenario is that if net neutrality really goes away then you will find your regular free tube sites have been choked of bandwidth because they can't pay a large fee to the isp's.

Then you'll have the one big porn company that can afford the fees pays them, and then charges you to access their content and in part, to cover the cost of the fees they pay to the providers.

So it is quite possible indeed that free porn sites will become untenable / unusable because neutrality has been compromised. The tube sites operate on razor thin margins as it is and any significant growth in costs or decline in revenues due to fewer visitors is likely to send some of them under.

I only hope that if or when it happens that all the apathetic folk out there who dismissed all this as none of their concern enjoy jerking off to the sight of a swirling load icon.

Sounds like a return to low def images/videos on newsgroups and email attachments could be the way "forward" :pac:

KomradeBishop

People don't understand the extent to which EU politics is dominated by lobby groups - Brussels is second in the world, only to Washington, where it comes to the power of lobby groups, with huge amounts of money being spent for this purpose - don't underestimate the power of these groups, to corrupt the EU and parliament:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/08/lobbyists-european-parliament-brussels-corporate

For instance, here is a lengthy report citing much to fault with the operation of the EU - including parliament:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/24/business/international/anti-corruption-group-finds-fault-with-european-union.html?_r=0

Recommend the documentary 'The Brussels Business', for a good analysis of the problem as well:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2279313/


People - up until recently - might think the EU is relatively benign when it comes to lawmaking and whatnot, due to good regulations regarding quality food and such - but we're going to fast see all of the 'good' regulations from the EU disappear, when international treaties like TTIP start completely stripping away all the good that has been done, in order to integrate EU and US markets (i.e. in order to open up the EU, to all of the sub-par produce from the US, that is currently illegal here).

So, I can realistically see a complete U-turn on the way for the EU, where it starts being used to deliberately enforce blatantly damaging policies like this current net-neutrality-ending one, in order to suit corporate interests, at the expense of the public.

We've already seen how projects aimed at European integration - the Euro most especially - have been a trap/backdoor that is now being used to control countries politically (control over currency in bad economic times = effective control over countries politically, and can be used to keep countries under 'bad economic times' i.e. under permanent political control), and if people aren't a lot more active in opposing EU-level lobbying and international 'trade' treaties, we're going to see international 'treaties' and the EU, both used to cement control over European countries, and strip more power away from the national level.

People think the future of the EU is going to - eventually - be democratic. Reality is that there's a very good chance that it won't be, unless the public become a lot more politically active/attentive (the trend so far has been a gradual erosion of democracy, combined with creeping corporate influence at an EU level).

ancapailldorcha

RandomName2 wrote: »

Yeah, but how? We have little or no say how the EU is run. Even if we elect an MP on a particular platform they are bound by party policy (both their own, and grouping) - and, as shown, might not even bother turning up (all aboard the gravy train: woo woo!). And outside the EU Parliament we have no say, at all. If the EU says net neutrality is over, you better believe that net-neutrality is over, brother.

Ah but there are large online businesses who won't want to be held to ransom by lowly ISPs such as Facebook, Google, Netflix & Twitter. Lobbying governments might work for us for a change.

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Ah but there are large online businesses who won't want to be held to ransom by lowly ISPs such as Facebook, Google, Netflix & Twitter. Lobbying governments might work for us for a change.

Who all lobbied hard here and were ignored once again by legislators who "know better"

ancapailldorcha

VinLieger wrote: »

Who all lobbied hard here and were ignored once again by legislators who "know better"

This isn't set in stone yet. There is still quite a bit of time to prevent this.

VinLieger

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

This isn't set in stone yet. There is still quite a bit of time to prevent this.

After this and TTIP I have little hope of any votes in Brussels going the way of the people the MEPs say they represent would most benefit from

ancapailldorcha

VinLieger wrote: »

After this and TTIP I have little hope of any votes in Brussels going the way of the people the MEPs say they represent would most benefit from

TTIP is not through yet. In any case, net neutrality wouldn't be an issue there. ISDS exists to protect foreign firms against discrimination. Net Neutrality does not discriminate.

KomradeBishop

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

TTIP is not through yet. In any case, net neutrality wouldn't be an issue there. ISDS exists to protect foreign firms against discrimination. Net Neutrality does not discriminate.

That's a very sanitized reading of ISDS. ISDS exists to further strip nations of their sovereignty, and put them at the whims of largely unaccountable international courts, where they (whole nations) can be subject to sanctions.

ISDS is a method of enforcing a very specific and limited set of political goals, centered almost entirely around deregulation/privatization - as its purpose is to create a significant cost to nations, for having/implementing regulations, and to create a bigger impetus for deregulation/privatization (by manufacturing a new artificial 'cost' to nations, for just keeping existing regulations/nationalized-industry).

Keep in mind, the pressure countries are under in tough economic times, to rein in the budget and spin-off public services, and imagine then, how ISDS can then be used as a threat to impose even greater cost/sanction on countries, if they do not strip away regulations and further spin off public services into privatization - it's a huge political and economic threat to countries, that will be opportunistically used by politicians, as an excuse for pursuing (and hastening on) the above policies.

It's a good example of tipping powers in favour of corporations, not just over the public, but over entire nations - and a massive threat to the sovereignty and democratic integrity of those nations.


International courts like that, have pretty much zero democratic accountability, and there is little recourse or way to impose accountability, if they become corrupt or their process becomes easily gameable/corruptible by corporations - as ISDS courts have a history of.

These kinds of policies, tend to be promoted by people who think the idea of national sovereignty (and almost of democracy itself) is passé or such - which is a very common sentiment that seems to be expressed by some of the more staunch defenders of EU integration as well, seeing as that is leading to an acceleration erosion of national sovereignty and democracy.


The very fact that treaties like this are even close to being enacted, and have gotten to such an advanced stage of negotiation, is extremely alarming really...