Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

(Pre-) history of European Network Neutrality and Human Rights


Published on

Published in: Education, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

(Pre-) history of European Network Neutrality and Human Rights

  1. 1. (Pre-) history of European NetworkNeutrality and Human RightsProfessor Chris MarsdenCouncil of EuropeStrasbourg29 May 2013
  2. 2. 2 Check against delivery participants onlyBook written2008-9;launchedJanuary 2010Secondedition2016100,000downloadsfirst 2 months
  3. 3. The problem in a graphic
  4. 4. 1. Regulate traffic management - operators’ prioritisation of data flows.minimum “Quality of Service” (QoS) standardsto mitigate certain negative effects of network-management policies,such as the degradation of network performance.2. Universal and reciprocal access to all resources connected to internet.prevent the blocking of access to web sites by network operatorslimiting access to content, applications and servicesMeasuring the performance of individual traffic flows originating fromspecific applications may be a necessary part of any test configurationfor detection of blocking and throttling of applications.BEREC, A framework for Quality of Service in the scope of NetNeutrality, 2011, pp. 3-4, Background paper: “Publicdebate encompasses 2 dimensions”
  5. 5. 5/29/20135‘Negative neutrality’orNet neutrality ‘lite’
  6. 6. Glasnost initial results
  7. 7. 7Net 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.
  8. 8. 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
  9. 9. State control replaced by private censors?
  10. 10. Telcos never liked the InternetAT&T’s Jack Osterman reacting to Baran’s 1964 concept:‘First it can’t possibly work,and if it did,damned if we are going to allow thecreation of a competitor to ourselves.’
  11. 11. Common Carriage not newBegan with obligations on inns/boatsDetermined by public function of networksContinued into modern networksE.g. Railways and telegraphs1844 Railway Regulation Act (UK)Setting both emergency access (‘kill switch’)AND Parliamentary trainsFRAND end-to-end access at set cost
  12. 12. Nothing in regulation is new
  13. 13. [1999] Pluralism in the Multi-Channel Television Market:Suggestions for Regulatory ScrutinyCouncil of Europe Human Rights Commission,Mass Media Directorate, Strasbourg, FranceMM-S-PL [99]12 Def2.Net Neutrality Worries in Strasbourg?
  14. 14. the phenomenon of convergence in the form ofintegration of programming and technical bottleneckfacilities – is driving this market phenomenon.In the case of Sky and AOL, it is content allied tocontrol of the browser, the ‘first screen’;in the case of Microsoft,it is the browser operating system allied to thedistribution platforms of cable companiesMarsden for CoE Committee ofExperts on Media Pluralism [99] S.5.1
  15. 15. “AOL, WorldCom and other Internet companies againurged federal authorities to bar cable operators strikingexclusive deals on high-speed Internet serviceInternet providers want to be sure thatconsumers will enjoy the same open access to their servicesvia cable networks that they now have over phone lines...”24 May 1999: Section 5.1
  16. 16. So net neutrality is a debate thatbegan in the last milleniumMergers: cable TV and broadband companiesAT&T/MediaOne and AOL/TimeWarnerLessig and Lemley FCC submission:‘The end of End-to-End’ (original May 1999)Before ‘Code and Other Laws…’Fear of abuse of freedom of expression
  17. 17. 1. AOL forced to interoperate video IM system2. 3G almost infinitely delayed by rapaciousMNOs and Finance Ministries in 2000 auctions3. NN imposed on US BabyBell mergers 2005/64. Apple controlled iTunes/AppStore from 20075. Net neutrality complaints in UK from 2001:P2P and gaming apps degraded by BT and othersBut the future was imperfect
  18. 18. Warned EC not to regulate Internet video content butto watch bottleneck dominanceAdvised Ofcom that MNOs would be non-neutralAdvised content actors to tell EC to ensure neutralityPrice and quality discrimination in next generation consumeraccess to internet content: Beyond the ’net neutrality’ debateChris Marsden Jonathan Cave TR-503-CP 22 June 2007Marsden/van Oranje for EC [2005]Marsden/Cave for Ofcom [2006]Marsden/Cave for Google et al [2007]
  19. 19. Classed as co-regulationmarket actors and self-regulatory bodies maintain a constantdialogue with regulators and consumers.Preferable lighter-touch regime to government-fundedregulation and non-regulation of [Net Neutrality].A light-touch stable regime provides investors with…some certainty that carriers will not cause unwelcome“surprises” that distort their business case.Proposals that user-generated Web2.0 video & computergames be charged on basis of QoS included in “surprises”.P47: “[NN] should be primarily enforced viareporting requirements on network operators”
  20. 20. Net neutrality permanentfeature of telecoms lawIt is a debate whichhas existed since 1999will grow in importance asInternet matures & service quality increasesdemand on the network formore attractive fixed andmobile/wireless services.
  21. 21. Incidentally it’s not net neutrality...It’s ‘the open Internet’In both EC consultation and FCC Order
  22. 22. Net neutrality laws 2013Country Legal ApproachNetherlands 15 May 2012 (S.7.4.a of Telecoms Law)Slovenia 20 Dec 2012 (Art.203 ISPs may not throttlecommercially, charge for differentiated service)Finland Universal access to ‘unfiltered’ InternetChile Universal 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 ‘
  23. 23. Kroes’ ChampagneInternet?
  24. 24. Private Internet CensorshipISPs are not evil – they’re capitalistsRegulators are meant to regulate capitalismTo enable fundamental rightsAs well as economic development/innovationBut telecoms National Regulatory Authoritieshave no rights-based competences (or rights-based NN issues outside their scope!
  25. 25. ISP as secret policemen?
  26. 26. Human rights and checkpoints?
  27. 27. We need rules of the road?
  28. 28. OPTIMISM
  29. 29. ISPs as ‘3 Wise Monkeys’ ECD Art.12-14speak, see, hear no evil?
  30. 30. Losing liberty?Deep Packet Inspectiontrial without consentISPs important intermediary limited liabilityBased on their wise monkeys roleThrottling on non-transparent basisRemoves 2000/31/EC Art.12-14 exemptionFreedom of expression vital to democracy2005-7 Behavioural advertisingUK PHORM/BTEC brings case to CJEU 2010-11UK Government amends implementation of privacy law
  31. 31. European Data Protection SupervisorOctober 2011Concerned that traffic management would result inexposure of users’ personal dataIncluding IP addresses‘Opinion on net neutrality, traffic management and protectionof privacy and personal data’
  32. 32. 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
  33. 33. regular visitors (esp. Washington and Brussels)Comments? Questions?
  34. 34. Lemley and Lessig (2001) The End of End-to-End: Preserving theArchitecture of the Internet in the Broadband Era, UCLA L. REV. 48: 925Marsden, C., et al (2006)Assessing Indirect Impacts of the EC Proposalsfor Video Regulation, TR-414 for Ofcom.Santa Monica: RANDFrieden, Rob (2006) Internet 3.0: Identifying Problems and Solutions tothe Network Neutrality DebateLevinson, D. and Odlyzko, A. (2007) Too expensive to meter: Theinfluence of transaction costs in transportation and communication at, C. (2008) Net Neutrality: The European Debate 12 Journal ofInternet Law 2 pp1, 7-16 (Wolters Kluwer).Marsden, C. (2010) Net Neutrality – Towards a Co-Regulatory Solution?Bloomsbury Academic
  35. 35. 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
  36. 36. Cesar Alierta, CEO Telefónica:“Something is now working in the value chain and this is not a levelplaying field.”Franco Bernabè, CEO Telecom Italia:“a couple of players dominate the market, stifling competition asothers struggle to develop a significant customer base”.Randall Stephenson, CEO AT&T:“Policy makers are going to have to be very clear about whetherthey desire rapid adoption of the latest technologies,or do they desire hyper-competition and the lowest prices possiblefor the most basic of services.Telcos declare war on Google andFacebook: 25 February 2013
  37. 37. 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