Marsden net neutrality in the European Parliament

4,581 views

Published on

Published in: Technology

Marsden net neutrality in the European Parliament

  1. 1. How Soon is Now?Implementing Network NeutralityProfessor Chris Marsden#NNinEP4 June 2013
  2. 2. 1999Network Neutrality debate began in 1999Mergers: cable TV and broadband companiesAT&T/MediaOne and AOL/TimeWarnerLessig and Lemley FCC submission:‘The end of End-to-End’Before ‘Code and Other Laws…’Fear of closed duopoly model
  3. 3. Ofcom: ‘no formal complaints’BEREC (2010) Response to the European Commission’sconsultation on the open Internet and net neutrality inEurope, BoR (10)42Charlie Dunstone, Chairman, TalkTalkOfcom International Conference, Nov 2006“We shape traffic to restrict P2P users.I get hate mail at home from peoplewhen that means we restricttheir ability to play games.”
  4. 4. 5Book launchedFebruary 2010100,000downloadsfirst 2 months2nd edition inpaperback 2015
  5. 5. Declaration: Neutrality 2009/140ECThe Commission attaches high importance topreserving the open and neutral character of theInternet,taking full account of the will of the co-legislatorsto enshrine net neutrality as a policy objective andregulatory principle to be promoted by NRAs
  6. 6. Kroes: BEREC given key role by EC[1] EC not leading in evidence gathering –for BEREC:"At the end of 2011, I will publish the results, including anyinstances of blocking or throttling certain types oftraffic."[2] If that produces evidence of widespreadinfringement - only Madison River Skype blocking?recommend setting EU guidance rules"more stringent measures [in] the form of guidance."[3] "If this proves insufficient, I am ready to prohibitthe blocking of lawful services or applications.”That means guidance 2013regulatory action 2014, if ever.
  7. 7. Net neutrality laws 2013Country Legal ApproachNetherlands 15 May 2012 (S.7.4.a of Telecoms Law)Chile &FinlandUniversal access to ‘unfiltered’ InternetUnited States FCC Open Internet Order Sept ‘11Norway Co-regulation – 2009 agreementCanada CRTC rules 2009 (not implemented?)Japan, UKFranceSelf-regulation unenforcedARCEP ‘Ten Principles ‘
  8. 8. Norway UK Netherlands USMeasurement Self-declared withverification?Ofcom:SamKnowsConsumers e.g.Glasnost/Neubot/BitsofFreedomFCC: SamKnowsTechnical advice Within co-regulatory pactBroadbandStakeholder Groupco-regulationNRA – advisingministryBITAG and OIACself/co-regulationLegal position Co-regulation Not implemented2009/136/EUImplemented2009/136/EUOrder December2010, publishedSept.2011Efficiency Very fast – firstmoverVery slow –industry footdraggingVery fast –legislative panicVery slow – notecourt delayLesson Act fast, getstakeholder buy-inDeath by a 1000cuts; deny-delay-degrade;significant politicaldamageMobile DPI andblockingprompted action –legislative panicLack ofbipartisanshipcauses trenchwarfareToolsets/lessons for each approach
  9. 9. Slovenia Economic Communications Act 2012http://www.scribd.com/doc/144614369/Slovenia-Net-Neutrality-law-2012"net neutrality means that operators will have to send internet traffic withuniform speed and permeability regardless of the content”ISPs prevented from restricting, or slowing Internet trafficexcept to solve congestion, security or addressing spam.Commercial differentiation of QoS will be prohibited.ISP prohibited from different connectivity pricesstrong impact on mobile operators “data caps”
  10. 10. Net Neutrality: European ApproachesNetwork neutrality growing policy controversy,2 elements separated:present net neutrality lite debate andthe emerging net neutrality heavyconcerned with fibre access networks in future.
  11. 11. CommissionerKroes’ ChampagneInternet?
  12. 12. Glasnost initial results
  13. 13. 14Net Neutrality Lite: EU approachNN ‘Lite’ permits discrimination on speed and price fornew network capacity,but insists existing networks do not discriminate ‘backwards’i.e. do not reduce the existing levels of service.‘Amazon Net Neutrality’ in September 2006decided on acceptable minimal level of regulationFuture possible investment sharing,but protects existing user levels.
  14. 14. Horizontal and indirect effects should be consideredNot just states, and not just companies obeying state lawIt’s not just about blocking and filtering – easy casesMore interesting: closed high speed lanes‘Managed Services’ – such as Deutsche Telekom IPTVAccompanied by data caps set until 2017?US refuses to permit this naked discrimination by corporatesEquivalence of access?Leaving us on 1950s roads while they build toll motorways?But net neutrality is also aboutpositive obligations on private actorsto uphold citizens’ right
  15. 15. State control replaced by private censors?
  16. 16. Fifteen years and counting…FCC Chairmen:Reed HundtMichael PowellKevin MartinJulius GenachowskiStill continues to be non-enforced2. United States
  17. 17. US FCC Order 2011, challenge 2012FCC Report and Order (2010) Preserving the Open Internet,25 FCC Rcd 17905FCC Report and Order, In The Matter Of Preserving The OpenInternet And Broadband Industry Practices,GN Docket No. 09-191, WC Docket NO. 07-52, FCC 10-201 § 21-30Published 22 Dec 2010, appeared Federal Register 23 Sept 2011In Re: FCC, In the Matter of Preserving the Open Internet, Reportand Order, FCC 10-201, 76 Fed. Reg. 59192 (2011),Consolidation Order - Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation,Oct. 6, 2011http://commcns.org/sOFyyT
  18. 18. FCC Order: In the Matter of: Preserving the OpenInternet; Broadband Industry Practices(rel. Dec. 23, 2010)FCC 10-201; GN Docket No. 09-191; WC Docket No. 07-52Petition for Review filed September 30, 2011.2011 Order consolidates case numbers 11-1356, 11-1403,11-1404, and 11-1411 with lead case number 11-1355Open Internet Order legitimacy court caseexpected judgment now summer 2013Verizon v. FCC, Case No: 11-1356D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals
  19. 19. Special and Managed ServicesFCC excludes Quality of ServicePrivate ‘managed’ or ‘specialized’ servicesIPTV, VOIP, emergency calls and telemedicineThese use the IP pipe, but a reserved sectionHow big is the private pipe? 10% or 90%Who gets access? Anyone who pays?Or only those ‘preferred partners’ to ISPs?Do you only see certain IPTV channels?Its making part of the pipe back into cable!
  20. 20. Self-regulation:http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2032233Broadband Industry Technical Advisory GroupSet up by Dale Hatfield from Colorado in 2010Multi-stakeholder – techie-heavyhttp://www.bitag.org/bitag_organization.php?action=historyTakes on test cases from 2012 as no referred casesHandles FCC cases free of chargeIndustry pays $60,000 per case (if there were any)FCC uses two advisory groups:[1] BITAG
  21. 21. Co-regulatory: appointed by FCC in May 2012http://www.fcc.gov/document/open-internet-advisory-committee-members-announcedChair: Jonathan Zittrain (Harvard Law),Vice-chair David Clark (MIT/IETF/engineer)Multi-stakeholder – includes NGOs and industrySpecialized Services definitions sub-groupWhen can a managed service lanebe partitioned out of the regular open IP stream?FCC: [2]Open Internet Advisory Committee
  22. 22. "Specialized services is a term that ismeaningful only within the context of the Order.It is a way to talk about “anything else”that is IP-based over a physical access path.It is NOT a new category of servicefor which a class of regulation is applicable."Working assumptions - require casestudies to flesh out their details :
  23. 23. [1] The service is a general servicee.g. a service like IP on which higher-level services can run,[2] It reaches most… of the end-points of the InternetAs opposed to a specific “user-level” service like telephonyor home security, which is presumably a specialized serviceE.g. one cannot evade the Orderby offering an Internet-like servicethat cannot reach a small country somewhere."“Service is NOT a specialized service,and is subject to the Order if:
  24. 24. Example"If [a DSL or cable ISP] decided to offer a “poor”Internet service, would we view this as:“Better than nothing or unacceptably slow[?]“Perhaps they can call it Internet but notbroadband?"Do we:[1] impose FRAND conditions and[2] insist that slow service is NOT the real Internet?Limits the reach of specializedservices that evade the Order
  25. 25. 1st Internet Science conference Brussels 10-11 April 2013Professor Ziga Turk, minister in charge of Slovenian lawAlissa Cooper, member of FCC OIAC sub-groupCarl-Christian Buhr, advisor to Neelie KroesUK, French and Dutch technical engineering expertsNet neutrality will grow and grow
  26. 26. @ChrisTMarsdenC.Marsden@sussex.ac.ukhttp://chrismarsden.blogspot.co.uk/5500 regular visitors (esp. Washington and Brussels)Comments? Questions?
  27. 27. Marsden, C. [1999] Pluralism in the Multi-Channel Television Market: Suggestionsfor Regulatory Scrutiny, Council of Europe, MM-S-PL [99]12 Def2.Lemley and Lessig (2001) The End of End-to-End: Preserving the Architecture ofthe Internet in the Broadband Era, UCLA L. REV. 48: 925Marsden, C. [2005] Contribution to Impact Assessment of the revision of theTelevision Without Frontiers Directive, with E. Horlings, C. Van Oranje, M.Botterman, TR-334-EC DGJS Santa Monica: RANDMarsden, C. and J.Cave [2006] Assessing Indirect Impacts of the EC Proposals forVideo Regulation, TR-414 for Ofcom. Santa Monica: RANDMarsden, C. [2008] Net Neutrality: The European Debate 12 Journal of InternetLaw 2 pp1, 7-16 Marsden, C. (2010) Net Neutrality – Towards a Co-RegulatorySolution? Bloomsbury AcademicMarsden, C. [2013] Network Neutrality: A Research Guide Chapter 16 in ‘ResearchHandbook On Governance Of The Internet’, I. Brown, ed., Edward Elgar.Marsden, C. [2012] Internet Co-Regulation and Constitutionalism: TowardsEuropean Judicial Review, 26 Int. Rev. of Law, Computers & Tech 2. pp.212-228.Marsden, C. [2012] Regulating Intermediary Liability and Network Neutrality,Chapter 15, pp701-750 ‘Telecommunications Law and Regulation’ (Oxf, 4th ed)Marsden, C. [2011] Network Neutrality and ISP Liability Regulation: Are the WiseMonkeys of Cyberspace Becoming Stupid? 2 Global Policy 1 pp.1-12Marsden, C. [2013] Regulating Code: Good Governance and Better Regulation inthe Information Age with Ian Brown, MIT Press: Cambridge MA. 312pp.
  28. 28. DIRECTIVE 2009/136/ECNew Articles 20 and 22, Recital 26:Consumer protection/citizen rights NOT SMPhttp://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2009:337:0011:0036:EN:PDFRequirements to notify customers & NRAsBut will need civil society activistsTo detect discriminationTo notify higher-end consumers of problemsAdded to interoperability requirementsArticle 5 Interconnection Directive
  29. 29. Article 22: Quality of service1. Member States shall ensure that NRAs areable to require networks and/or services to publishcomparable, adequate and up-to-date QoS information2. NRAs may specify the QoS parameters to be measuredcontent, form and manner of information published,including possible quality certification mechanisms,end-users...comparable reliable user-friendly information3. In order to prevent the degradation of service,Member States ensure NRAs can set QoS requirements.
  30. 30. NRAs shall provide the Commission1. ... with a summary of the grounds for action,2. the envisaged requirements and3. the proposed course of action.4. This information shall be available to BERECThe Commission may... make commentsor recommendations...NRAs shall take the utmost account of the Commission’scomments or recommendations when deciding on therequirements.
  31. 31. Specific strengthening of DirectivesArticle 8(4)(g) Framework Directivestrengthening of related transparency requirementsUSD Articles 20(1)(b) and 21(3)(c) and (d)safeguard NRA powers to prevent service degradationslowing down traffic over public networksUSD Article 22(3)Transparency for end-users
  32. 32. Commission will monitor closelyimplementation in Member Statesintroducing a particular focus on howEuropean citizens ‘net freedoms’ are safeguardedin its annual Progress Report to Parliament and Council.Commission will monitor impact on ‘net freedoms’of market and technological developmentsreporting to Parliament/Council before end-2010on whether additional guidance is required, andwill invoke its existing competition law powersto deal with anti-competitive practices that may emerge.
  33. 33. Net neutrality laws 2013 update19 December 2012: Slovenia net neutrality law1 January 2013: Netherlands to enforce 2012 lawMarch 2013: France proposes net neutrality lawAnd search neutrality? ‘all intermediaries’That would be 4th country in Europe:Finland via universal serviceNetherlands after mobile WhatsApp blockingSlovenia
  34. 34. Work with the ministries of justice and the interiorto draft legislation on net neutrality,National Digital Council (CNN) submitted a report on the subject.freedom of expression not sufficiently protected in French lawgiven development of filtering, blocking, censorship, throttlingWording to be included in 1986 freedom of communication lawCNN suggests extend neutrality to all information access servicesincluding search engines, social networks and mobile apps,to guarantee access to information and to means of expressionin non-discrimination, fair and transparent mannerFrance 13/3/13: digital economyminister Fleur Pellerin announced

×