![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Reply from the Greens/EFA party (incorporating the SNP):
Telecom Universal Service Directive
Some questions and answers
July 4th 2008
Greens/EFA Group
On July 7th the IMCO Committee will vote on the proposal for a Directive on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks (= USD: Universal Service Directive). The Rapporteur is Malcolm Harbour (PPE, UK) and a working group involving shadow rapporteurs from the 4 main political groups (including Heide Rühle for the Greens/EFA) has met several times in the last few weeks in order to come to compromise amendments. Controversial points of view have been recently expressed by sectors from the civil society about the draft directive, the amendments and the draft compromises in IMCO, in particular by the BEUC, by "Quadrature du Net"or by CMBA.
The purpose of this note is to clarify the position that Greens/EFA have defended in IMCO regarding the main issues at stake and to explain our strategy.
1. According to some interested parties, IMCO "politicians" would be engaged in summer manoeuvres, relying on the fact that nobody watches them a week before parliamentary holiday, to divert the telecom package from its primary objectives of consumer protection. There would be currently a series of secret, backroom negotiations between a handful of MEPs who would not always understand all the implications of these issues.
The Commission proposal has been issued in 2007 and since then the IMCO Committee has had several public debates about it. The Rapporteur has drafted his Report on April 14th, the amendments by IMCO MEPs were tabled by the end of April and since then there have been several discussions among the shadow rapporteurs, who are all very well informed and follow closely the dossier. The time schedule (vote in IMCO beginning of July) has nothing to do with "manoeuvres" and the strong reactions by civil society prove that if anyone in IMCO expected that "nobody watches them", well they were wrong (fortunately) !... Attempting to arrive at compromise amendments on EU legislation is the normal procedure in the European Parliament. In any case Greens/EFA would not support compromises which would not guarantee citizens' rights.
2. Net neutrality. Will Internet Service Providers (ISP) be able, due to the content of subscribers' electronic activities, to filter, monitor and eventually block subscribers' access to the internet, thus substituting themselves to the judicial authorities ?
This is not what the current compromise amendment on Article 22 says. The original Commission proposal said that the national regulatory authority can set minimum quality of service requirements, and that the Commission may adopt measures to ensure that such requirements do not slow down the traffic over the internet. Greens/EFA in IMCO agree with that because they consider that using the internet is a service of general (economic) interest and that therefore it is very important indeed to ensure appropriate network management in order to prevent degradation of service. Furthermore, we had tabled an amendment to add in this article that ISPs must ensure that subscribers can send and receive any form of content without prejudice of the needs to preserve the integrity and security of the networks. The compromise amendment keeps the same idea by stating that "the ability of users to access or distribute lawful content or to run lawful applications and services of their choice is not unreasonably restricted". Recital 14 confirms that "it should be the end-users' decision what lawful content they want to be able to send and receive, and which services, applications, hardware and software they want to use for such purposes, without prejudice to the need to preserve the integrity and security of networks and services". So these provisions do not give ISPs the right to monitor or block the traffic on the internet because of the content of subscribers' activities. Their purpose is rather to avoid slowing down of the traffic. Some sectors of the civil society may consider that there should be no restriction at all, even for unlawful content but this is not the Greens/EFA position.
On the same kind of topic, the current compromise amendments on Articles 20 and 21 specify the contractual and non contractual information that subscribers must receive and that operators must provide.
It is true that the compromise on Article 20 makes it clear that contractual information must include "information on any restrictions imposed by the provider regarding a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute lawful content or run lawful applications and services". But if such restrictions exist, it is clearly in the subscriber's interest to be informed of it in the contract. Besides, the same provision existed in the Commission's proposal, which imposed that the contract should include information on "the action that might be taken by the undertaking (...) in reaction to security or integrity incidents or threats and vulnerabilities".
In order to clarify further that any restriction should be motivated by network management purposes, it is envisaged that we and the PSE would propose an oral amendment in Article 20, specifying that information on restrictions concern restrictions imposed to ensure the security and integrity of networks.
Regarding Article 21, the current compromise amendment adds a paragraph 4a which specifies that the operators will be obliged to distribute public information produced by public authorities in order to inform the public about "the most common uses of electronic communications services to carry out unlawful activities or to disseminate harmful content, particularly where it may prejudice respect for the rights and freedoms of others, including infringement of copyright and related rights and their consequences, and means of protection against risks to personal security, privacy and personal data". So again, that does not give ISP any right to block anything lawful for content purposes, it only says that the public should be informed about activities that are unlawful. Greens/EFA in IMCO consider that this is justified, in particular because many parents do not know what their children do on the internet.
The current compromise amendment in Article 33 (2a) says that national regulatory authorities shall promote cooperation among ISPs regarding "the protection and promotion of lawful content". This seems admissible for Greens/EFA as part of a compromise to avoid precisely that ISPs could cut internet connections without prior judgment. But in order to make it clear that we are not in favour of over-protecting intellectual property rights, Greens/EFA and the PSE could ask for a split vote to delete the words "protection and".
3. Contract duration. How easily will it be for subscribers to change ISP ?
This is a key aspect for Greens/EFA because the duration of contracts should be short enough to promote a truly competitive market and to facilitate access to contracts especially by younger subscribers. We have tabled an amendment obliging ISPs to inform subscribers every year about their more interesting tariffs. In addition, and together with the PSE, we have tabled a consolidated amendment for a new paragraph in Article 30 to ensure that ISPs must offer users the possibility to subscribe to a contract with a maximum duration of 12 months, and that in any case any contract shall not exceed 24 months. The Rapporteur is opposed to this provision but it seems that we can win on it because we would be supported by the ALDE Group.
4. Our voting strategy in IMCO
Greens/EFA in IMCO have co-signed the compromise amendments, not only because these compromises include a series of our concerns, but also because they avoid the worst amendments to be adopted, in particular those amendments tabled by certain, mainly French MEPs, which would enable ISPs to act as a sort of internet police or jeopardise the right to privacy in electronic communications. Therefore we carry on negotiations with the Rapporteur (Harbour) and the shadows so that we can find a joint and stable solution.
IAN HUDGHTON MEP
SNP GROUP LEADER - EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT
PRESIDENT - SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY
I can hardly make heads or tails of it.
From: (Anonymous)
no subject
All the amendments have gone through (although the whole package has still to be voted on), but it's not at all clear that the directives would have the negative consequences feared at this stage. That said, after such wheezes in the past as attempting to get the software patents directive put through on the nod via the Agriculture and Fisheries Council, alarm at this legislation is scarcely unreasonable. It seems at the moment like the directive isn't intended to legitimise 3 strikes legislation, or require monitoring of individuals, and the drafter has indicated he's open to amendments to preclude such interpretations, but it's still not clear to me what the effects on ISPs' "mere conduit" status would be.
From:
no subject
2. They disagree with the suggestion that the current version of the legislation implements a three-strikes policy. They have, though, concerns about whether an ISP implementing such a policy (or anything similar) will have to inform their customers clearly enough.
3.Is contract length actually an issue in this case? Seems like a good line to take as far as it goes, but I don't see the relevance.
4. They believe that the current version is worth supporting precisely because it does not involve items such as or similar to a three-strikes policy.