For some background see: https://edri.org/ep-committees-broadly-positive-votes-net-neutrality/ I think it is way too late for the "technical community to weigh in here". Especially if the plenary vote is indeed at the beginning of April. If folk wish to influence legislation then they have to align with the process. Meanwhile looking at ETNO's inputs/reactions might give you some insights. Gordon On 19 Mar, 2014, at 17:24, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com> wrote:

Thanks for the pointers, Wouter.

Does anyone know whether there are efforts from the technical community to weigh in here? I would be interested in understanding better, and understanding the forces behind the current formulation of the legislation generally.

Cheers, Meredith

On Wed, Mar 19, 2014 at 12:03 PM, Wouter van Hulten <wouter@vanhulten.com> wrote: Hi Meredith,

Dutch MEP Marietje Schaake posted on her blog:

http://www.marietjeschaake.eu/2014/03/mep-net-neutrality-and-the-open-intern...

http://thenextweb.com/eu/2014/03/18/meps-vote-approve-net-neutrality-plan-al...

If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 januari 2013 is threatened, as commented on in these articles http://www.telecompaper.com/nieuws/itre-stemt-voor-telecompakket-kroes--1002... and http://www.computeridee.nl/nieuws/nederlandse-netneutraliteit-onder-vuur-doo....

regards,

Wouter

Colocation Research

www.coloresearch.com

From: cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net [cooperation-wg-bounces@ripe.net] on behalf of Meredith Whittaker [meredithrachel@google.com] Sent: Wednesday, March 19, 2014 4:23 PM To: cooperation-wg@ripe.net Subject: [cooperation-wg] EP "Connected Continent" and Internet Fast Lane provisions?

Hi all,

Interested in your thoughts on the EP vote to approve the Connected Continent legislation.

The press release states that, "Companies would still able to offer specialized services of higher quality, such as video on demand and business-critical data-intensive cloud applications, provided that this does not interfere with the internet speeds promised to other customers."

This appears to be allowing for "fast lane" service. At least, that's how it's being read in the US trade press.

Thoughts?

Cheers, Meredith

--

Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

--

Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

Hello, to me, is not completely clear what Ziggo is proposing (the term “platform” is misleading when talking about Internet access). It could be a kind of specialized connectivity, apparently open to any kind of service provider. One should question why users and service providers would like to use it, as long as best effort is working. The only way to make this product to become interesting to the market, is to degrade best effort Internet. About Netflix/Comcast: this is a paid direct peering agreement. The quality of the traffic is enhanced because the routing become more simple, however there is no specific traffic shaping or prioritization. I would say that this is is not a case of NN infringement, see also http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/the-netflixcomcast-deal... IMG ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno@innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 11:32, Bastiaan Goslings <bastiaan.goslings@ams-ix.net> ha scritto:

On 19 Mar 2014, at 17:03, Wouter van Hulten <wouter@vanhulten.com> wrote:

...

If these rules go through, the Dutch net neutrality law in force since 1 januari 2013 is threatened

For what it's worth, some are already anticipating. René Obermann, CEO of the largest cable operator in NL Ziggo, announced in an interview on the 8th of March:

'We want to build an internet platform that provides access to external parties: the right speed, with minimal delay. Think video services like Netflix, but also to emergency centers, medical care or remote communication between devices. These include services that are not "elastic" are [in contrast to loading a webpage, red] and a guaranteed network quality demand.'

and:

'This should be an open platform, accessible to small and big players. Definitely not a walled garden which Ziggo determines what to do. Our video application will be one of the TV services, in addition to those of others.

The article goes on to say that:

'Obermann looks with interest to a recent agreement between Netflix and the major U.S. cable operator, Comcast. Although the details are unknown, it is clear that Netflix will pay extra for guaranteed good transmission. The network provider is no longer a neutral intermediary, critics say. But this could be a source of revenue for cable operators as consumers en masse exchange their television subscription for Internet services.

(Google translate, from Dutch newspaper NRC http://www.nrc.nl/handelsblad/van/2014/maart/08/te-snel-voor-een-logge-tanke... . Behind a login btw, I can share the text.)

I recently had a call with the EC who are doing preliminary research on the announced take over of Ziggo by Liberty Global (owner of the second largest Dutch cable network). Currently both Ziggo and Liberty Global/UPC already have regional monopolies, and together they own 90% of the Dutch cable market.

http://www.telecompaper.com/news/dutch-regulator-to-ask-ec-for-say-on-ziggo-...

It seems likely though that when the merge happens, the cable-networks will have to be opened up for other service providers. In the meantime I hope the Dutch can defend their net neutrality principles in the Council negotiations as well as afterwards (codecision)

-Bastiaan

I'm not a student of EU governmental process. However, I see value generally in a technical review of and pushback on technically vague and possibly untenable legislation. Whatever stage the draft is at, exposing the potential implications, and allowing open public debate seems positive. I'd love to see sane advocates push for specific answers to questions raised in such a document, and gather support for broader accountability and discourse. On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com>wrote:

A sort of recap:

The proposal from the Commission did not come out of the blue. There were discussions of various kinds and we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved.* Whether there was joined-up-thinking within those organisations is maybe out of scope here.

The proposal was then adopted by the Commission and forwarded to the other institutions quite some time ago - September last year. Then it became public.

Discussions in Council tend not to be that visible - they are between governments. People can always however contact their own favourite government minister.

Discussions in the Parliament have been more visible. Individual MEPs have looked at the proposal. There have been meetings. Lobbyists have lobbied.** Commentators have commented. And Committees have met. And again we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved.

The Committees which wanted to vote have now voted and we are now about two weeks from a probable plenary vote.

So it is too late to do anything? Maybe. But as has been pointed out everybody is looking forward to the elections.

Would it be useful if this bit of the RIPE community wrote? I am not sure. Agreeing a text and sending it "on behalf of" within a week? Not easy. Then again others who wish the proposal to go through would find it very easy to shoot such a thing down. They have their technical experts too.

Maybe it would be better if everybody here - and their friends! - wrote individually to as many MEPs as they thought useful.

But what would folk be asking for?

Asking for clarification? No. Nobody has time for that now.

Throw out the whole proposal? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays?

Throw out the NN bit - which articles? A bit drastic. But based on the fact that it is just not clear?

Modify the NN bit - the bit they have already discussed and discussed? And what would we propose, jointly or individually?

Push it all back to the new parliament? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays?

Push back the NN bit?

Or...?

Gordon

* Is any member of ETNO or ECTA not also a member or RIPE?

** I would guess for example Google had a say.

-- Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC

Dear Julius, many thanks for your exhaustive explanations. Yes, as long as the premium service of Ziggo is non-discriminatory (i.e. it will enhance quality or speed for any kind of service/application) NN is not manifestly infringed. However, a problem may arise in case only selected OTT and content providers may afford the premium connectivity (it depends on the tariff scheme). In addition, if the best effort Internet is squeezed by the premium connectivity, then you have a scenario of 2-tier Internet. Should Ziggo be acquired by UPC, the resulting reinforced dominant position could encourage the larger ISP to make policy and business practices even less neutral. The current Open Internet compromise amendment (voted by ITRE) seems to address the case of deterioration of best effort Internet as a consequence of specialized services offers. By contrast, the compromise does not address a case of discriminations of price connectivity (unlike the Dutch legislation). To the opposite, price discrimination would be legalized under this European reform. Ciao, Inno ----------------------------------------- Innocenzo Genna Genna Cabinet Sprl 1050 Bruxelles - Belgium Skype: innonews Twitter: @InnoGenna Email: inno@innogenna.it my blog:http://radiobruxelleslibera.wordpress.com/ my music: www.innocenzogenna.com Il giorno 20/mar/2014, alle ore 21:28, Julius ter Pelkwijk <pelkwijk@gmail.com> ha scritto:

Hi all,

I am a citizen from Holland that closely follows the stuff that Ziggo is currently doing. I can give you some background information and some interesting facts about it. Ziggo and UPC are 2 big cable companies in Holland. Ziggo is a fusion between multiple cable companies, that laid down cable systems in the 70's in every city because they had problems with everyone putting a receiver on their roof. Because of that, the government asked for companies to gather this signal and broadcast them over the "cable". Since the companies laid down the whole cable system per city, and because of some agreements from that time they now still "own" the cable. KPN (the biggest telephone company in holland) however used to be governmental property, and because of that there was a law that prohibited them from closing the system because everyone should be able to call the emergency services. Also, since their cable was governmental property, they had to open up the infrastructure for everyone. Thats why everyone is able to use ADSL, however cable television/internet is still controlled by the local cable company.

From what I have understood from all the mailing surrounding Ziggo is that they are planning to sell "guaranteed bandwidth". Think of it like VLAN with QoS, where VoIP has more priority than normal http traffic. This will actually give some interesting facts: They can for example "squeeze" your internet connection when they think its becoming too prohibitive on their communication channel or sell very cheap (but slow) internet connections, and will charge you extra if you want to "unlock" certain speeds for selective websites. They wont "disallow" you to reach the website, however watching netflix movies in HD for example will be made difficult. Dutch law as it currently stands is very restrictive in squeezing, and only allows squeezing if its purpose is used to limit traffic congestion. This is the reason why youtube movies cannot be watched inside the NS trains, because they are connected with 3G networks and thus the network will be congested if too many people start watching youtube.

Ziggo is already using this same practice on his television channels: Currently there are a very few channels you can watch by cable, and are of very bad quality. If you like to watch in HD or better resolution, you have to pay extra bucks for a "premium" subscription. You can watch the free channels, however they are so limited and of such quality that you actually HAVE to switch to a paid digital channel with the newer televisions.

For those that dont understand what I am saying, is best explained with a bicycle pump. The pump is the internet and the flow of air is your internet connection. You pay for the flow of air, however when you want to watch netflix, you have to pay ziggo to make the hole temporarely bigger so you can get an extra boost of netflix air. If you dont pay, then it will just take longer for your wheel to get filled.

Technically this practice still falls under "net neutrality", because they dont distinguish what you are watching but only offer you "guaranteed internet speeds" or a "boost" for certain websites and/or IP adress ranges. However, looking at their dominance, I can only see troubles arising since they control over 80% of dutch cable television and currently dont have any competition (there is no law that makes them provide access to their network of cables).

Julius

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 7:13 PM, Meredith Whittaker <meredithrachel@google.com> wrote: I'm not a student of EU governmental process. However, I see value generally in a technical review of and pushback on technically vague and possibly untenable legislation. Whatever stage the draft is at, exposing the potential implications, and allowing open public debate seems positive.

I'd love to see sane advocates push for specific answers to questions raised in such a document, and gather support for broader accountability and discourse.

On Thu, Mar 20, 2014 at 1:23 PM, Gordon Lennox <gordon.lennox.13@gmail.com> wrote: A sort of recap:

The proposal from the Commission did not come out of the blue. There were discussions of various kinds and we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved.* Whether there was joined-up-thinking within those organisations is maybe out of scope here.

The proposal was then adopted by the Commission and forwarded to the other institutions quite some time ago - September last year. Then it became public.

Discussions in Council tend not to be that visible - they are between governments. People can always however contact their own favourite government minister.

Discussions in the Parliament have been more visible. Individual MEPs have looked at the proposal. There have been meetings. Lobbyists have lobbied.** Commentators have commented. And Committees have met. And again we can be pretty sure that members of RIPE were involved.

The Committees which wanted to vote have now voted and we are now about two weeks from a probable plenary vote.

So it is too late to do anything? Maybe. But as has been pointed out everybody is looking forward to the elections.

Would it be useful if this bit of the RIPE community wrote? I am not sure. Agreeing a text and sending it "on behalf of" within a week? Not easy. Then again others who wish the proposal to go through would find it very easy to shoot such a thing down. They have their technical experts too.

Maybe it would be better if everybody here - and their friends! - wrote individually to as many MEPs as they thought useful.

But what would folk be asking for?

Asking for clarification? No. Nobody has time for that now.

Throw out the whole proposal? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays?

Throw out the NN bit - which articles? A bit drastic. But based on the fact that it is just not clear?

Modify the NN bit - the bit they have already discussed and discussed? And what would we propose, jointly or individually?

Push it all back to the new parliament? Including the bit on roaming and just before the summer holidays?

Push back the NN bit?

Or...?

Gordon

* Is any member of ETNO or ECTA not also a member or RIPE?

** I would guess for example Google had a say.

--

Meredith Whittaker Program Manager, Google Research Google NYC