The European Parliament just dealt a major blow to net neutrality
On Tuesday afternoon, the European Parliament has voted against all amendments to a bill on the European single market for electronic communications - raising fears among activists, tech companies and NGOs that the proposals as they currently stand fail to properly protect net neutrality.
Net neutrality is the principle that all data should be treated equally, and that people should not be able to pay for preferential "fast lanes" for their data online. The proposals ostensibly uphold the principle, but internet activists are concerned that they contain multiple loopholes, and do no such thing.
Ahead of the vote, a spokesperson for digital rights group EDRi - who has been campaigning for amendments - told Business Insider that the vote is legally binding, and will likely come into effect in November. EDRi says it will attempt to work with European data regulator BEREC to make sure that "the vagueness of the text is resolved."
Reacting to the vote, MEP Marietje Schaake said that it was a "missed opportunity." In a statement, the Dutch politician said that "too much attention was given to the interests of national telecom companies and too little to those of internet users and the economy of the future. This has led to vague texts on net neutrality, which compromises the open internet."
One of the key opponents to the European Parliament proposals is a coalition digital rights groups and NGOscalled "Save The Internet." It includes European Digital Rights (EDRi), the British Open Rights Group (ORG), La Quadrature du Net in France, and Reporters Without Borders.
ir Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the world wide web, is also a critic. He says that "if adopted as currently written, these rules will threaten innovation, free speech and privacy, and compromise Europe's ability to lead in the digital economy."
Dozens of tech companies also signed a letter opposing the proposals, including BitTorrent, EyeEm, Foursquare, Kickstarter, Netflix, Reddit, Transferwise, Vimeo, and YPlan. "These problems jeopardize the future of the startup innovation and economic growth in the EU. They also create barriers for U.S. startups and businesses seeking to enter the EU market," the letter reads. "We believe that the future of the open Internet in Europe is at stake and urgent action is warranted."
Four key problems.
In a blog post published last week, Stanford law professor Barbara van Schewick laid out what she says are the four key problems with the European Parliament's proposed rules. These are:
- "The proposal allows ISPs to create fast lanes for companies that pay through the specialized services exception." This exemption is intended for "specialized services" - like medical data, say - but van Schewick argues that the exception is "too broad," and that "in many cases, it still allows ISPs to offer fast lanes by calling them a specialized service."The proposal generally allows zero-rating and gives regulators very limited ability to police it, leaving users and companies without protection against all but the most egregious cases.
- "The proposal generally allows zero-rating and gives regulators very limited ability to police it, leaving users and companies without protection against all but the most egregious cases." If a service is zero-rated, it doesn't count towards a users' bandwidth cap or usage costs. This means companies could pay ISPs to be zero-rated - once again creating an unequal internet.
- "The proposal allows ISPs to define classes and speed up or slow down traffic in those classes, even if there is no congestion." ISPs could still choose to discriminate against certain kinds of data (like peer-to-peer torrenting, for example). Van Schewick worries that because ISPs will not be able to identify what "class" encrypted data fits in, they will simply put them in the slowest lane - as has happened before. This will discourage the use of encryption, and make the internet less secure.
- "The proposal allows ISPs to start managing congestion in the case of impending congestion. That means that they can slow down traffic anytime, not just during times of actual congestion." Van Schewick thinks this will be used as an excuse for discriminatory traffic management, "using the justification that congestion was just about to materialise."
This story is developing...
- Close-ups of footage said to show Gabby Petito's van near where a body was found appear to show the rear door closing
- Elon Musk pulled his 'last remaining house' off the market after vowing last year to get rid of nearly all his possessions
- It's never been more clear: companies should give up on back to office and let us all work remotely, permanently
- Durex takes down its latest social media post on the bus scene from Netflix’s Sex Education after internet users call it ‘insensitive’
- Three reasons why this might be a good time to buy Bitcoin
- Sony ZV-E10 vlogging camera with interchangeable lens launched in India
- US, India, Japan, Australia to sign pact for stepping up chip production, reduce dependence on China
- Here’s how to schedule an email in Gmail