NET NEUTRALITY !

ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE by Giusy Cannella, Raegan MacDonald & Jochai Ben-Avie

NET NEUTRALITY ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE 3 to the , with more than 600,000 new users connecting each and every day. every and each connecting users new 600,000 than more with internet, to the traffic management and its impacts on the economy and the fundamental rights to privacy, data data privacy, protection, and to offreedom expression. rights fundamental the and economy the on impacts its and management “reasonable” traffic constitutes what discrimination, network of definition the particularly topics, main and technical the highly often surrounding these is of some on clarification brief a debate issues providewill paper misunderstandings,thismany to subjectthis the As into context. insight European the in detailed debate more neutrality provide network to is paper this of purpose The thereby ensure thatand net discrimination does notexamples occur in any Member their State. follow to Union European the urge strongly We direction. same the in 10 9 bit.ly/15zXF3k 8 7 6 jzE63v 5 b3oY0z 4 UUDm6N 2012: investigation, joint Commission’s European BEREC’s the from and 3 Findings companies or providers.telephone are ISPs of all not but providers”. Many access “internet called sometimes public, the to access internet provide that (ISPs) to companies Providers” referring are we Service “Internet 2 By As of June 2012, more than 2.7 billion people 2. BE Slovenia 2012, In internet.” the on services and applications down slow or hinder not do providers and services access internet services of access internet deliver of which networks “providers that communication guarantee electronic to public State Member Union European first the 2011,became in which, Providers Service Internet that means this practice, In internet. the of neutrality and openness the of foundation the are principles these Collectively, ( or anyone any from entity permission without innovate to point from traffic deliver to ( possible as effort expeditiously as best point their make should internet the of providers all that 2) ( network the in in points other points all to all connect to that able 1)be should principles: network the foundational three its on rests success continuing internet’s The 1. countries – such as Brazil,Belgium,LuxembourgFrance,Germanyasandsuch countries – adopt legislation explicitly laying out network neutrality principles, followed by the Netherlands the by followed principles, neutrality network out laying explicitly legislation adopt both fixed and mobile networks, and the blocking of internet telephony (Voice over IP), mostly on on mostly IP), mobileover networks. (Voice telephony internet of blocking the and networks, most mobile and The fixed both sites. and on traffic, (P2P) services peer-to-peer of to throttling and/or blocking the are access restrictions reported restricting frequently operators of trend increased an revealed It management. traffic regarding Commission European the with investigation joint a of findings the published (BEREC) Communications Electronic for Regulators European of Body 2012,the May In as – is that discrimination, network effectively is elaborated upon in this what paper – discrimination that in ISPs apply on are traffic on the network. ISPs engaging day, every principles, Yet, these neutrality”. violating “network term the to leading packets, transmit to used protocols, etc) (equipment, means or content of type or origin the matter no basis, equal an on traffic are particularly substantial if we look at the European Union where, of 500 million inhabitants, inhabitants, million 500 networks”. of of network “the to where, connected is Union 67.5%population the of European the at look we if substantial particularly are legislation enshrining network neutrality in law. Around the world there have been few, but, but, few, been have there world the Around law. significant legislative initiatives in to neutrality. network In codify 2010, Chile neutrality network enact to enshrining is online discrimination legislation arbitrary stop to way only the that believes strongly Access

IN . , article in English on the law: law: the on English in , article . TRODUCTIO Digital Agenda Scoreboard 2012, European Commission: Commission: 2012, European Scoreboard Agenda Digital 2012: Pingdom, Royal usage, internet on Infographic Figures: and -ICT Facts 2013 World in The Union: International in EUvary countries,Study: policies Net PCWorld,neutrality 2013: neutrality: net on law Slovenian the on English in Article Act: Telecommunications Dutch amended the of Freedom of Bits from Summary text: Act, original Telecommunications Chilean to the 4915: Amendment Bill N . EFITS OF OF EFITS 3 6

also enshrined the fundamental principle of net neutrality in law, and other other and law, in neutrality net of principle fundamental the enshrined also N N the best effort principle effort best the ET http://bit.ly/a2y698 N 8 – over a third of the world’s population – have access – access have population – a of world’s over the third EUTRALITY the innovation without permission principle permission without the innovation 2 . (hereafter ISPs) must treat all internet internet all treat must ISPs) (hereafter ); and 3) that everyone should be able to to able be should everyone that 3) and ); http://bit.ly/ysK7Rd http://bit.ly/QruIL9 10 http://bit.ly/TycLzs

7 the end to end principle end to end the 4 – are currently moving moving currently are – was the first country to was country the first http://bit.ly/15zFIBk http://bit.ly/ . . 9 http://bit.ly/ These figures figures These http://bit.ly/ . http:// . ); ). 5

the amended Dutch Telecommunica Dutch amended the from Bits of of Freedom Summary 5. http://bit.ly/a2y698 the on law: article in English text: original Chilean Telecommunications Act, 4915:Bill to the Amendment 4. tion, 2012: pean Commission’s jointEuro investigathe and BEREC’s from Findings 3. providers. companies or telecommunications but not all of ISPs are telephone access service to the public. Many any to person thatlegal provides internet referring are we (ISPs) By “Internet Service Providers” 2. QruIL9 Commission: European 2012, Scoreboard Agenda Digital 10. ysK7Rd Royal Pingdom, 2012: usage, internet on Infographic 9. ly/15zXF3k Figures: and Facts Union: The World in 2013 - ICT Telecommunication International 8. http://bit.ly/15zFIBk in EU countries, PCWorld, 2013: vary Study: policies Net neutrality 7. 2013: radiobruxelleslibera, principles, Slovenia reinforces net neutrality 6. Act:tions . http://bit.ly/TycLzs .

.

http://bit.ly/jzE63v http://bit.ly/UUDm6N http://bit.ly/b3oY0z http://bit. . .

http://bit.ly/ http://bit.ly/ . . . - - - , NET NEUTRALITY ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE 4 20 19 18 http://bit.ly/148Irfl reveals that there is a direct correlation between the increase of high speed internet connection connection society. and economy of the all levels internet across development and speed high of increase the between report correlation Bank direct World a a is there that particular, In reveals growth. economic for platform a as also and rights, human of The importance of an open and neutral internet has also been recognised by several respected Europe, respected of several Council by the from recognised been institutions: also has internet neutral and open an of importance The are rights these paper, this of preface the in out pointed fundamental for the thriving Berners-Lee ofdata healthy and Tim democracies. privacy Sir to As rights fundamental protection. the safeguard – sort any of interference discriminatory to be realised. to be event: 17 16 15 14 ly/SVo83y 2008: Internet, the of openness and integrity universality, the of promotion and tection 13 expression, and of opinion Frank La Rue, 2011: 12 bit.ly/isO8oq 11 arbitrary and intentionally to ISPs of to internet. and the open neutral to access users’ apply restrictions tendency the as discrimination” “network defines Access 3. if stopped be must that practice a discriminatory, frequently fundamental rights are flourishareto economic theand Digitalbenefitsthe of Single Market Europe in ISPs However, can continue EU toasked innovate startups “without European permission” 20 of of ISPscoalition thatCommissioner a mayfortheDigital neutrality, Agendawant Neelie Kroesto keepto the internetnetwork playopen and of neutral thetheyso role importance of the gatekeepers. discuss to letter joint a In with innovate and market the enter to groundbreaking entrepreneurs ideas. web allowing platform an to neutral thanks creation, and possible job been open for has This driver known. ever has greatest world the the possibly competitiveness quite and innovation, become has market digital the years, 20 In right. human a basic as recognised becoming is internet to the access Unfettered • rights can be realised, notably the freedoms of expression and association, but also the the also but association, and expression of freedoms the education. and culture notably access to rights realised, fundamental which be through gateway can a is internet rights the that fact the and underlined Opinion of has Freedom to Expression, Right the of Protection and Promotion the on Rapporteur Special UN • place, take can discrimination

W companies – do this to favour their own voice calling services over VoIP services, thereby thereby services, VoIP over services calling crushing competition.voice own their favour to telecommunication this do especially – – ISPs companies Often properly. running from services the applications, preventing many of down, them slowing by sensitivity services these of (delay) functioning correct the latency to compromise able are ISPs high to the access Given have to fee platforms. extra internet an pay these to users ask or Skype), (like applications and YouTube) speeds: internet “throttling” or Slowing over IP (like (VoIP)and Viber)services Skype for their customers. Voice of use the restricting or blocking Telekom) Deutsche (like providers mobile European is discrimination of of this form network case prominent most The players. market applications of and competing services certain exclude – online applications and services own their offer services: applicationsand of Blocking http://bit.ly/18P5kME . HAT IS Deutsche Telekom Restricts Skype On iPhone, InformationWeek, 2009: InformationWeek, iPhone, On Skype Restricts Telekom Deutsche 2013: Access, Europe, in discrimination Network on Q&A Market: Single Digital Europe, for Agenda Digital (WGIG), 2005: Governance Internet on Group Working Nations United to the Input OECD Guaranteeing competition and the open internet in Europe, program and video of the full full the of video and program Europe, in internet open the and competition Guaranteeing Commission: CEO’s European to the European Letter by Open Report: Group World Bank 2009 the of Summary pro the on states to member Ministers of CM/Rec(2011)8 Committee the of Recommendation to freedom right the of protection and promotion the on Rapporteur Special the of Report 2011: Atlantic, The Right, Human aBasic Access Internet Declares Nations United . 16 delivered at a June 2013 event in the European Parliament organised by Access . N ETWORK DISCRIMIETWORK . inter alia inter , in the following ways: following , in the 12 13 Furthermore, an open and neutral internet – without and the OECD, In order to maximise profits, some ISPs – that also also that – ISPs some profits, maximise to order In http://bit.ly/kNHvvm Some ISPs slow down specific services (like (like services specific down slow ISPs Some http://bit.ly/qVaKp 14 http://bit.ly/13GUKnu to the World Bank, for the exercise exercise the for Bank, World the to 15 N . http://bit.ly/11fUriz ATIO 19 http://bit.ly/18Q3CdY Generally speaking, network network speaking, Generally 20

. http://ubm.io/13HPjRe N . ? 11 . Frank la Rue, Rue, la Frank http://bit. .

http:// 18 are are - . 17

ernance (WGIG),ernance 2005: Gov Internet on Group Working Nations United to the Input OECD 14. http://bit.ly/SVo83y and openness of the Internet, 2008: oftion the universality, integrity promo and protection the on states of Ministers to Committee member CM/Rec(2011)8Recommendation of the 13. http://bit.ly/kNHvvm and expression, Frank La Rue, 2011: of the right toof opinion freedom on the promotion and protection Rapporteur ofReport the Special 12. 2011: Atlantic, Access a Basic Right,Human The United Nations Declares Internet 11. http://ubm.io/13HPjRe On iPhone, InformationWeek, 2009: TelekomDeutsche Restricts Skype 20. bit.ly/11fUriz 2013: Access, Europe, in discrimination Network on Q&A 19. ly/13GUKnu Market: Single ital Dig Europe, for Agenda Digital 18. http://bit.ly/18P5kME event: of full the video and gram open internet in Europe, pro the and competition Guaranteeing 17. bit.ly/18Q3CdY Commission: European the Open Letter by European CEO’s to 16. Report:Group of Summary the 2009 World Bank 15. ly/148Irfl . . . . http://bit.ly/qVaKp http://bit.ly/isO8oq . . . . http://bit. http://bit. http:// http:// - - -

. - . NET NEUTRALITY ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE 5 be prohibited. should VoIP applications) between example (for applications of class same the within applications more or to one exclusively of service quality guaranteed to offer ISPs allowing that believes Access and principle, effort best the of therefore can not be defined as reasonable management. traffic violation a is discretion sole their at etc., services, applications, 26 2012: 25 ly/19eh5x6 24 23 http://bit.lyjT8QR 22 21 ISPs by justified often are practices Discriminatory 4. • • of service”, which is the ability to provide different priority to different applications, services, or or services, applications, different data. to priority different provide to ability the is which service”, of ISPs explosion”, “data quality alleged “guaranteed provide to the order in techniques to management traffic of use response greater making are In service. of quality sufficient enjoy to users for bandwidth particularly the network and that usage, without a degree of web traffic management, congestion in would make it impossible growth along on exponential with cause the congestion video applications, intensive costs, rise alleged in infrastructure the that claim ISPs many However, the of functioning proper the marketplace. undermine online and rights fundamental citizens’ threaten by they prohibited as clearly law be discriminatory should – services Furthermore, competing throttling unreasonable. and as blocking as on such – used considered practices are be or should purposes they other basis, pursue to permanent place a in put are practices management traffic When basis, during exceptional maintenance moments. temporary a on used be only should techniques technical management Traffic law. of neutrality net Dutch the purpose the by the – established as equally minimisefor treated be should to of traffic or types equal whereby attacks, of congestion, deployed service effects of is denial or it viruses, spam, when block to namely network, the of “reasonable” is management Traffic management traffic acceptable practices look like?do what debate: this in question another to leads This services. saturationslowingby downthrottlingor certainstreams anddegrading qualitythecompetingof However, is there on a preventing to their networks. fine limit line congestion implemented between within a class, which is exactly what network neutrality would safeguard against. against. safeguard would neutrality network what exactly is which class, a within these enables applications among also competition It distort to tool a as ISPs. service of from quality of provision the use interference to latter without choice their of services and applications

W h pplr ui sraig evc Deezer with service France streaming Orange musicas such popular – the services select to treatment preferential grant also do) (and contracts while granting data allowance exceptions to a company’s own own company’s a to exceptions allowance Telekom“T-Entertain”).own (like Deutsche its to streamingservices data proprietary granting while contracts access internet platforms: and services of treatment Preferential political or relations group, La Quadratureadvocacy du Net’s websiterights public on pre-paid mobiledigital accounts. French the social, blocked Telecom for Orange instance, for sometimes UK, the In and reasons. competition, avoid to or network, websites: Blocking Moreover, generally only large, well-established companies can afford this preferential preferential this afford can music. companies online legal treatment, resulting in stifling a well-established of further innovation. for large, those only as such generally markets Moreover, on limitations anti-competitive imposing 25 http://bit.ly/166CKUq However, guaranteeing a certain to the detriment of other types of data, data, of types other of detriment the to service of quality certain a guaranteeing However, HAT IS “REASO . Telcos Action Plan, Access, 2012: Plan, Access, Action Telcos mason, Analysys reality, and myth gigabyte: and mobile if the value the in collapse The 19: –page 2011 consulting, Plum growth, for –aplatform internet open The Deezer, rival Spotify with partners Orange 2013: Gigaom, government, German Telekom’s alarm “anti-net-neutrality” Deutsche plans 26 Indeed, this type of preferential treatment interferes with users’ ability to use the the use to ability users’ with interferes treatment preferential of type this Indeed, . . ISPs often block websites for a number of reasons – to secure their their secure to – reasons of number a for websites block often ISPs N A B LE” TRAFFIC MA http://bit.ly/J0QWQ9 23 Cable.co.uk – ahead of other competitors, effectively effectively competitors, other of ahead – 24 as “reasonable” traffic management management traffic “reasonable” as ISPs can also impose data caps on on caps data impose also can ISPs . , 2011: http://bit.ly/16079AV N 21 AGEME http://bit. 22 They can can They . N T? mobile and gigabyte: myth and if in the value the collapse The 25. page 19: growth, Plum consulting, 2011 – The open internet – a platform for 24. bit.ly/16079AV Deezer, rival Spotify with partners Orange 23. bit.ly/17jT8QR government, Gigaom, 2013: neutrality” plans alarm German Deutsche Telekom’s “anti-net- 22. http://bit.ly/zRpALj UK blocking La Quadrature du Net: , 2012, Orange 21. http://bit.ly/J0QWQ9 Telco Plan,Action Access, 2012: 26. http://bit.ly/166CKUq 2012: mason, reality, Analysys Cable.co.uk http://bit.ly/19eh5x6 . . , 2011: . . . http:// http:// .

NET NEUTRALITY ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE 6 ly/163FYpT also implemented in democratic countries such as Germany and the United Kingdom. United the and Germany as such countries in democratic implemented also it happens everyday in countries like China, Iran, and Russia – whose governments frequently frequently governments online. activity whose dissenting suppress – and speech political Russia censor to and technology this Iran, deploy China, like countries in hypothetical, not everyday is This happens it network. a across travels that information all also copy but – even traffic and of monitor to types certain of prioritisation or blocking as such – practices discriminatory implement to only not used be can tool intrusive highly this Indeed, network. the securing of scope the that fall far outside for reasons be can also deployed this technology software), malicious other or virus a (e.g. networks their to attacks mitigate and detect to ISPs by used often is DPI Although such communications. with interfere to therefore and – example for email, an simply or virus a – is it packet of sort what The Dutch net neutrality law, the first of its kind in Europe, does an exemplary job addressing this. stitute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE). paper: Engineers See Electronics and Electrical stituteof consider the complete payload of packet rather than just the packet header (definition from thedevice In and technologies that inspect and take action based on the contents of the28 packet i.e. it lines, 2012: 27 advanced an as software filtering consent of the user of or the company being served with use a valid legal warrant.express the without the – is prohibited Inspection Packet Deep – include would tool which surveillance Specifically, wiretapping). (and management customers, traffic unjustified their for employed of be can that techniques connections the the on guidelines strict filtering provides or also it throttling from ISPs prohibits only not law This safeguards, which lay down limits as to what can be done and under which circumstances.” filtering techniques must only be these used “in with the conformity applicable Supervisor, data and protection privacy Protection Data European the of opinion the with line In Union. European the of Rights and Fundamental Freedoms (ECHR) and 7 Articles and 8 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights Human of Protection the for Convention European a the of 8 is Article by guaranteed which right fundamental communications, of privacy the breach may ISPs data, communications inspecting By Inspection Packet (DPI), Deep as such tools deploy ISPs several filtering, or shaping, blocking, as such practices, management traffic of variety a implement to order In about communications. of questions privacy raises also management traffic unjustified and perpetual of use increasing The IMPACTSFILTERI OF 5. experience of for quality users, even forhigh delay-sensitive a applications in such as VoIP.”cases most in results fact in and performance, internet low the imply of not approach does effort best the delivery, data of level quality guaranteed a providing not that “While recognised that: out points has report BEREC A recent (BEREC) needed. not simply are guarantees of service Communications quality Electronic for Regulators European of Body The 32 and the protection of privacy and personal data, 2011: 31 30 2012: 29 best way ISPs can manage traffic is to invest in network infrastructure to increase the networks’ networks’ the capacityincrease and to avoid congestion.infrastructure the network in end, invest to the is In traffic manage functioning. can ISPs internet’s way best the to fundamental are that include principles not effort” should “best and and rule, the “end-to-end” the against from clearly go practices these as ISPs, by deviations restrictions permanent or tailored arbitrary narrowly as allowed be only should While we agree that ISPs should be able to manage their wenetworks, believe traffic management

W 28 http://bit.ly/Sr9vDb a technology that allows them to examine data traveling over the internet and recognise recognise and internet the over traveling data examine to them allows that technology a HAT ARE THE FU . A quick guide to Cameron’s default Internet filters, Open Rights Group, 2013: Group, Rights filters, Open Internet default to Cameron’s guide Aquick (DPI) is a computer network surveillance technique that uses uses that technique surveillance network (DPI) acomputer is Inspection Packet Deep these along initiatives similar or ITU/WCIT for proposal ETNO the on BEREC’s comments See footnote 4. footnote See management traffic neutrality, net on Supervisor Protection Data European the of Opinion today, International, live Privacy goes plan surveillance Internet new Kremlin’s The http://bit.ly/TE4SUo . .

N N G TECH DAME http://bit.ly/14Lmrxw N N TAL RIGHTS RIGHTS TAL 27 OLOGIES?

http://bit.ly/16MssuV . .

30 http://bit.

31

29 It is is It - 32

http://bit.ly/Sr9vDb 2012: International, Privacy today, live goes plan veillance sur Internet new Kremlin’s The 29. 2011: (IEEE), Engineers Electronics and from the Institute of Electrical (definition header packet the just plete payload of packet rather than packet i.e. it considers the com action based on the contents of the take and that inspect technologies and device uses that technique surveillance network a computer Deep Packet Inspection (DPI) is 28. http://bit.ly/TE4SUo lines, these tiatives2012: along posal for ITU/WCIT or similar ini BEREC’s comments on the ETNO pro 27. See footnote 5. 32. data, 2011: personal of privacy and protection the and management traffic trality, neu net on Supervisor Protection Opinion of the European Data 31. Group, 2013: Rights Open filters, Internet default to Cameron’s guide A quick 30. http://bit.ly/16MssuV http://bit.ly/14Lmrxw http://bit.ly/163FYpT . .

. - - . - - . - NET NEUTRALITY ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE 7 while at other times suggesting that a sufficient solution to such pervasive discrimination would would discrimination compeltelecommunication tobe companiestransparentpervasive beto such to solution sufficient a that suggesting times other at while release press Commission’s the to according toachieveCommission’s Continent”.the sector However,telecoms the goalof“Connected a while stating her desire to ensure that all EU citizens have access to an open and neutral internet,neutral and open is statements an to bold access have which citizens EU between all that ensure approach, to desirespeeches her stating in Her wavered has internet. Regulation, neutral proposed and the in open confirmed now an ensure to commitment her abandoned sufficient to protect net neutrality. But transparency and “switching” are simply not a solution solution a not simply are market. the in competition “switching” real no and is there if transparency But neutrality. net be might protect to transparency sufficient enhanced and competition that suggests problematically approach This “without offers countless internet obstructions” and logic, if they providers this are not to getting service the “switch” full internet to According they users expect. discriminatorily. enable will act transparency can such they usage, internet on restrictions apply they freedom to impart and receive information the way an open and neutral internet provides. provides. internet neutral and open an way the information receive and impart to freedom choices”. 42 2013: 41 2013: 40 es, May 2013: 39 ly/12NzFo6 38 http://bit.ly/17jT8QR 37 http://bit.ly/18cs2hW 36 http://bit.ly/18cs2hW 2013: Continent. aConnected to achieve and communications electronic for market single European the 35 34 ly/13GVoRK 33 issued recently has a for Kroes proposal Neelie a Agenda Digital the for Commissioner European the parallel, In management, traffic of elements switching, and the tools. responsible usemanagement of traffic transparency, on guidance include will website Commission’s Neutrality Network and Internet “ its publish to looking currently is Commission European The European the of for completion need the Digital Single Market. ensure the to order in supporting neutrality resolutions net enshrine two would that adopted legislation Parliament European the 2012 of end the At BEREC’s by revealed evidence discrimination. the network prevent to despite undertaken been have actions but concrete no investigations, management, traffic internet to of consultations public issues two explore launched has Commission European the 2010 of Summer the Since 6. ned Cmisoe Kos oc a tog rpnn o ntok neutrality, network of proponent strong a once Kroes, Commissioner Indeed, opposite of net neutrality. exact the equal would provisions these of sum The internet”. “two-tier a to leading and markets online on limitations anti-competitive imposing effectively against, discriminated are services competitors’ while services, selected to treatment preferential grant providers access way,this while granting priority to their own services (like Deutsche Telekom to its own “T-Entertain”). own its Telekomto Deutsche (like services own their to priority granting while contracts access internet on “data-caps” to impose ISPs allow would Regulation the Furthermore, commercial into enter to able be would deals with ISPsproviders to ensure that their is traffic always delivered first andcontent faster. big that be would of deals outcomes special problematic such most the of One traffic. internet prioritise to order in with providers agreements content commercial into enter to ISPs allowing by it meaningless applications,” provisions or these content makes services, specific against discriminating otherwise or degrade down, slow to ISPs 23) “block, prohibit would that (Article provisions contains text the legislative Although consumer and innovation rights”, it fails toneutrality, deliver on “net a number of fronts. Belowguarantee we will and highlight some of thecompanies” major concerns. more between competition

T http://bit.ly/13ichRK http://bit.ly/U160q0 HE CURRE 41 . and EP’s Report on a Digital Freedom Strategy in EU Foreign Policy: Policy: Foreign EU in Strategy Freedom EP’s aDigital on and Report Digital Agenda Scoreboard, European Commission: Commission: European Scoreboard, Agenda Digital June Kroes, Commissioner from speech all, for internet open the EU, safeguarding The Liberation, recettes, et de choix de histoire filtrage: une de et applications Internet Kro Commissioner from market, speech single telecoms the completing the of politics The neutrality: net on statements Kroes’ Commissioner reporting EDRi’s timeline 2013: Gigaom, government, Telekom’s German ‘anti-net-neutrality’ Deutsche alarm plans 2013 release, market, press single telecoms for forward step major proposes Commission concerning measures down laying Council the of and Parliament European the of Regulation Digital Agenda for Europe, Open Internet: Open Europe, for Agenda Digital Market: Single Digital the Completing on Parliament’s Report European This suggests that as long as telecommunication companies disclose whether or not not or whether disclose companies telecommunication as long as that suggests This http://bit.ly/18xhiue Regulation for a Telecoms Single Market Single Telecoms a for Regulation . . . 33 . . N T STATE PLAY OF I . ” by the end of 2013/early 2014, which according to the the to according which 2014, 2013/early of end the by ” 42 These elements will not effectively guarantee the the guarantee effectively not will elements These 36 the proposed Regulation will “encourage more http://bit.ly/12NzCbK http://bit.ly/195lthXk7w , 35 that includes binding measures for for measures binding includes that 40 34 Recommendations on the Open Open the on Recommendations so citizens can make “informed “informed make can citizens so N .

E UROPE http://bit.ly/UwhGwG http://bit. . 38 seems to have have to seems http://bit. 37 . In In - 39

- page 5: - page 2012 highway”, super broadband the Consumer Focus’ Report “Lost on 42. http://bit.ly/13ichRK Commissioner Kroes, June 2013: internet for all, speech from The EU, safeguarding the open 41. http://bit.ly/U160q0 de recettes, Liberation, et 2013:choix de histoire une trage: fil de applications et Internet 40. http://bit.ly/18xhiue 2013: May Kroes, Commissioner from market, speech single telecoms the The politics of the completing 39. forward for telecoms single mar single telecoms for forward step major proposes Commission 36. 2013: achieve a Connected Continent. toand electronic communications for market single European the laying down measures concerning Parliament ofand the Council ofRegulation the European 35. Internet: for Europe,Digital Agenda Open 34. http://bit.ly/UwhGwG Strategy in EU Policy:Foreign EP’s Report on a Digital Freedom Market: Completing the Digital Single Parliament’sEuropean Report on 33. neutrality: Kroes’sioner statements on net EDRi’s reporting Commis timeline 38. ly/17jT8QR 2013: Gigaom, ernment, gov German alarm plans trality’ Telekom’s ‘anti-net-neuDeutsche 37. bit.ly/18PXSNZ 2013 ket, release, press http://bit.ly/18cs2hW http://bit.ly/13GVoRK . http://bit.ly/12NzCbK http://bit.ly/SJtHkK http://bit.ly/12NzFo6 . . . . . http://bit. http:// . and and . . - - - . - - NET NEUTRALITY ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE 8 by Commissioner herself Kroes only a months few ago. short highlighted ironically an element on EU entrepreneurs, of effect an have adverse would undermining an neutrality net such that concerned equally is Industry and Enterprise for Commissioner The encouraging Fundamental preferential of content agreements between and ISPs. of dangers the of warned Charter also the document The undermine expression. of could freedom namely Rights, Regulation the that concerns raised Justice DG and the protection of privacy and personal data, 2012: 47 46 reut.rs/18Qcgo4 45 es, May 2013: 44 bit.ly/17NfpYO 43 4. 3. 2. 1. that the following provisions are enshrined into law: recommend we internet, neutral and thriving a ensure and discrimination network end to order In 7. document. Commission internal leaked a in EDRi by revealed Commission, as European the within even debate, of heated subject the been already has Regulation proposed The of a large majority of Commissioners, who share many of civil society’s concerns, particularly particularly concerns, society’s civil of toregardingrelated net neutrality. the aspects many share who Commissioners, of majority large a of support the have did not proposal Kroes’ Commissioner that showed vote internal A Commission’s strong, enforceable network neutrality provisions inenshrine to EU law. Parliament: the of segment cross-party large, a of position the reflect to text draft the to amend opportunity the who have Parliament, is now in of European the hands the legislation The

P data protection and fundamental rights framework. By default, these types of inspection inspection of EU’s types the these with default, information. header examine only should By techniques compliance framework. assess rights to fundamental and regulators protection protection data data national by reviewed should data) be associated of re-use and storage (including software inspection packet of Use v. iv. iii. ii. i. is interference such strictlyunless andnecessary proportionatechoice, to: their of device any from choice their and of content applications access use to freedom users’ internet with interference any from refrain shall ISPs be prohibited. should or throttling as blocking such management, traffic of discriminatory forms All content. or type, recipient, sender, its no matter basis on an equitable be treated should traffic data All the internet, without any form of mustrestriction, be maintained. to connected all endpoints between Reachability neutral. and open kept be must internet The

RI

Opinion of the European Data Protection Supervisor on net neutrality, traffic management management traffic neutrality, net on Supervisor Protection Data European the of Opinion 39. footnote See 2013: Reuters, official, Commission -EU plans telecoms to redraw have may EU Kro Commissioner from ,Speech Continent aConnected Market: Building Single ATelecoms 2013: September EDRi, Neutrality, Net On Attack Kroes’ Of Analysis Leak: Damning the without request any increase in subscription fee at any time. revoke may subscriber the provided subscriber, the from request an explicit with Comply legal obligations specific or Respect the if only subscriber has given prior but consent; spam), (e.g. messages commercial unsolicited of delivery the Block DDOS-traffic); and viruses (e.g. blocking ofuser the device terminal a or service, the network, the of safety and integrity the Safeguard while in treating manner; kinds the ofthe same same traffic congestion, of consequences the mitigate measure, exceptional and a transient As N . http://bit.ly/14Gviy1 CIPLES OF A A OF CIPLES . . N ET 45

N EUTRALITY LAW EUTRALITY http://bit.ly/15yLXXg 47

46 44

. 43 In particular, particular, In http:// http:// - trality, traffic management and the the and management traffic trality, neu net on Supervisor Protection Opinion of the European Data 47. See footnote 33. 46. uters, 2013: official, Re - plans EU Commission toEU have telecoms may redraw 45. http://bit.ly/14Gviy1 2013: May Kroes, Commissioner from ing a Connected Continent , Speech Market: Build Single A Telecoms 44. fpYO September 2013: Attack On Net Neutrality, EDRi, Of Kroes’ Analysis Leak: Damning 43. data, 2012: personal of privacy and protection . http://bit.ly/15yLXXg http://reut.rs/18Qcgo4 http://bit.ly/17N . - . - - . - NET NEUTRALITY ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE 9 small number of ISPs have joined this set of commitments. It also contains loopholes: while the the while loopholes: contains also It commitments. of set this joined have ISPs of number small protection agencies - has established the “Guidelines for Internet neutrality” - a set of principles neutrality. net principles to safeguard of set a - neutrality” Internet for “Guidelines the Authority established has - agencies Telecommunication consumer protection and and private organisations Post the industry providers, and Norwegian content ISPs, with the legislator of collaboration in - the that case (NTPA) where the is approach, This co-regulatory co-operate. a sector for opted have states Some access. internet users’ to applied it restrictions access”, any around “internet practices) labeled discriminatory of be banning not instance, for not, (and shall transparency services emphasises restricted or specialised that specifies code 49 48 model, still does not provide guaranteesthe necessary thatself-regulatory bindingthe than legislation would ensure.protections further providing certainly while solution, co-regulatory This of Charter the of 52 Article of Rights. breach Fundamental a be would this is require restriction to the failure where Any country implemented. the being in procedure and basis legal a is there unless must prohibited purposes be enforcement law “voluntary” that 6, No. principle proposed As Access’ in management”. elucidated traffic “reasonable as considered be should pornography child of that blocking states the guidelines the instance, for - discrimination of bases all cover to robust as not also is framework proposed The principles. these with comply not do who ISPs to those sanctions to issue However, these principles do not have any formal legal status and the is authority Norwegian not able promote to ISPs for conduct of access”. code internet open and “full voluntary of a offering the practice”, of United code the as Internet such approach, “Open Kingdom’s self-regulatory a for opted and have open the countries to some threats the internet, address neutral to steps proactive taken have that countries few those For to incentivised are ISPs throttling and blocking sites. and as on applications restrictions apply such online framework restrictions regulatory a banning of absence explicitly the in that prove BEREC by reported findings the Europe, In incumbent major of interests net commercial that prevail on fundamental rights. guarantee avoids and truly online to ISPs discriminating way prevents clearly arbitrary that only voluntary from legislation the through comprehensive that and uphold or strong enact believes to to is Europe co-legislative, in Access order neutrality to sector. in private legislative, pursued the from have in states neutrality; agreements some network approaches of principle different the of variety a are There LEGISLATIO 8. 6. 5.

W Fundamental Rights and articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights. Human on Convention 10 European and 8 the of articles and Rights Fundamental of Charter the of 52 Article of breach a be would this restriction require to Failure the where implemented. being is country the in procedure predictable and basis legal a is there unless must be prohibited purposes law enforcement of for “voluntary” treatment traffic Non-neutral and transparent be toshould accountable any inchanges practices. operators Network public. the to foreseeable and must accessible justifications be and practices management traffic reasonable on information Complete HY E UROPE N

49 N

OW N EEDS EEDS 48 N However, as sign-on is not mandatory, only a only mandatory, not is sign-on as However, ET N EUTRALITY EUTRALITY

2009: the Internet neutrality, Norway, Network neutrality, Guidelines for 49. ly/11pesU0 United Kingdom, 2012: internet, open the on crimination safeguarding against negative dis and services to access legal ing support practice of code Voluntary internetof practice: Open code 48. http://bit.ly/1arK7q0 . http://bit. . - - 10 NET NEUTRALITY ENDING NETWORK DISCRIMINATION IN EUROPE 50 of flourishing the promote and enable legislation now. net neutrality to a and human strong comprehensive Europe rights, needs internet the of potential full the protect and realise To and open the of promotion and preservation the for neutral internet around the world, benefitingstandard users globally. important an set only also not could will but legislation Strong discrimination, from exception. free internet no an unfettered to access right the with be citizens European provide should neutrality concerning issues network on and especially rights, human standard-setter, policy international an been long has Europe all for field companies all and playing citizens conducting level European business a both in of the Europeanbenefit guarantee Digitalthe Singleto Market, especiallytechnologies, effectively startups. internet would and sites This web used. be may that protocols and and democratic, of equipment in open, types the a and diversity will services, and remains legislation applications, flow of content, free the allow discrimination internet anti-net the Furthermore, Union. that European the ensure throughout innovative will legislation neutrality Network 9. remain to manner that is thought toto be theircontrary commercialinterest interests. in a act to them best persuade their successfully in will not co-regulation nor is it self-regulation that neither then neutral, believe businesses if that shown has evidence As interests. over long-term short-term prioritise and services own their favour often more ISPs platform, neutral a from providers and to and content to citizens access both offered the in benefits that despite his studies - revealed neutrality” “net term the coined - who University Wu Columbia of Tim Professor Indeed,

For more information, please contact Raegan MacDonald MacDonald Raegan contact please Forinformation, more Access of users at risk around the world. Combining innovative policy, user engagement, and direct direct and engagement, user policy, innovative Combining world. the around risk at users of Cannella C O (AccessNow.org) N technical support, we for all.fight communications andfor open support, secure technical ([email protected]) CLUSIO is an international NGO that defends and extends the rights digital the extends and defends that NGO international an is N or visit https://www.accessnow.org/netdiscrimination. ([email protected]) 50 or Giusy Giusy or bit.ly/aGLNxM 2002: Wu, Tim crimination, Network Neutrality, Broadband Dis 50. . http:// -