Limiting conditions from SFR in the small print

Does the net neutrality consultation mean that the  EU will take on the citizens' concerns for civil rights and freedom of expression,  as they were expressed in the Telecoms Package debate of  2009?

Earlier this month, the European Commission launched a consultation on net neutrality. The fact that this consultation exists at all is due to the power of citizen lobbying during the progress of the Telecoms Package through the EU legislature  in 2009.

 That is when the issue of net neutrality became ‘hot' in policy terms. There was a lobbyists'  fight over amendments to the Telecoms Package which arguably eroded net neutrality. The outcome of 4 November 2009   produced a demand from the European Parliament to the Commission to address the net neutrality formally in policy terms. The Commission has acknowledged this in its consultation document.

 The upshot is that EU policy-makers have been forced  to drop their old mantra which used to sound something like this: " because there is competition in European telecoms, therefore we do not need to address net neutrality".

 Competitive markets do indeed  put European policy on a different footing from US policy.  However, EU policy-makers   appear now to recognise that net neutrality issues do arise even in a competitive telecoms marketplace,  such as the EU (theoretically at least)  is. The  end-to-end  principle and open architecture on which the Internet is based, can break down in a competitive environment, and it can  do so  in a variety of different, unpredictable, ways.

 The European Commission's consultation on net neutrality begins with  the premise that

The Digital Economy Act, and the issues raised by it,  will  be addressed by  a new Committee of the UK Parliament. At its first meeting yesterday, it was  rights-holders v citizens. But where were the telcos?

The first meeting of the  All Party Parliamentary Group on the Digital Economy (APPG - Digital Economy) was held yesterday in the ancient and  hallowed halls of the Palace of Westminster. As befits this primordial  fight waged by the  rights-holders,  the poised and practiced  music industry lobbyists squared up to the largely volunteer citizens' representatives  across the room.

The rights-holders were for once not the dominant group, finding their presence matched by an equally strong citizen presence consisting of

In spite of the cloak and dagger secrecy with which the European Commission is trying to shroud its ACTA negotiators, Trade Commissioner Karel de Grucht let slip a few nuggets of information on Tuesday  afternoon - including comments on 3-strikes measures.

Speaking in a hearing with the European Parliament's Civil Liberties committee, which was public, Commissioner De Grucht said that he did not expect much progress at the next round of the ACTA (Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement)  negotiations - which will be in Washington in late July.  And he further predicted that there was   unlikely to be movement on ACTA  before September.

The reason for the stalling is a difference of

Is it "transparency" when  a  confidential briefing is given behind closed doors? In a post-Lisbon era, can the Commission continue to bully the Parliament in this way?

The European Parliament was briefed on ACTA (formally known as the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement) yesterday. That is the official position anyway. But it wasn't a briefing that would generally be recognised as being part of a democratic process.

The briefing was given by the European Commission's ACTA negotiators, including the infamous Luc Devigne from DG Trade. It was given to  the Parliament's INTA (Trade)  Committee. However, if MEPs  wanted to hear what the Commission had to say, they  had to go behind closed doors to hear it. And they had to first agree that they would maintain confidentiality and not release the information publicly. It is understood that the 

A renewed call from Green MEPs for ACTA transparency crosses with a reply from  the Commission  that maintains its old, discredited line that ACTA will remain within the EU acquis.

Last week, the Green group  in the European Parliament  issued a call for  the European Commission to suspend all negotiation on the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) until there is a proper agreement in place for full transparency. By ‘transparency' the Greens mean that the negotiating documents can be made public.

The Greens stress their concerns that ACTA will infringe  citizens' fundamental rights and freedoms and that it will impose some form of graduated response measures.

But is the Commission listening? Also last week, a  written answer from the Trade Commissioner Karel de Grucht, crossed with the transparency call. The Commission's answer arguably dodged

The Ofcom consultation makes no pretence at preserving the neutrality of the Internet, and pushes away any debate on the interests of citizens - saying that this is a matter for government and not the regulator.  

 Ofcom's focus is on the network operators' right to use traffic management technology to block, throttle,  shape, prioritise and degrade users' communications.   Reading the consultation closely, Ofcom is not consulting on whether we should permit traffic management, or even whether  any limits should be put on it. Rather, the consultation concerns 

Two of the six largest Internet Service Providers in the UK are mounting a legal challenge the 3-strikes law known as the Digital Economy Act (DE Act for short).  

TalkTalk, which has been consistent in its opposition to the DE Act, and BT, which has previously not taken action, have combined forces to  file papers in the High court. They are asking for a judicial review of the DE Act, which they claim failed to follow the correct legal procedures in respect of EU law. They do not specify the names of the directives, but they would appear to be referring to

A report that attempts to force the hand of the European Parliament on IPR enforcement  - including a possible weakening of the Telecoms Package outcome - has been temporarily stalled.

The Gallo report dealing with copyright and  IPR enforcement has been  stalled following a  vote today in the European Parliament in  Strasbourg. The   Parliament voted 140 to 135 in favour of postponing it until September, which will allow more time for scrutiny of the text.  

 The Gallo report, named after the rapporteur, Marielle Gallo,  is not a legislative proposal, and will not create any new laws. But it is important because it acts as  a lever in the political processes which will establish the European Parliament's position on IPR enforcement. It may be used to guide MEPs in future votes  on copyright and IPR enforcement matters, including the Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) .

 The Gallo report sets out a position which broadly favours stronger enforcement measures for IPR, including trademarks and counterfeit, and for copyright on the Internet. 'Enforcement' means measures such as 3-strikes,  website blocking, and other restrictions on Internet usage against allegations of copyright infringement.  The report  is written in the obscure language which is now becoming a familiar pattern, and it deals with

The Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) that was discussed this week in a secret meeting in Switzerland,  threatens fundamental principles of European telecoms law, in particular the  ‘mere conduit' provision, according to Europe's leading telecommunications companies. It's an ‘outside-in' change to EU law by international treaty, they say.

An alliance of European telecoms groups has taken an unusually strong  stand against ACTA. The alliance is  led by the economically powerful ETNO, whose members include Deutsche Telekom, France Telecom and BT, and ETNO is joined by  European associations of ISPs, mobile operators, e-commerce and Internet companies, and cable companies.

In a joint statement, they   say  that ACTA  could jeopardise key provisions in the acquis communitaire  including the important mere conduit principle which underpins the Internet in Europe. They advise  that ACTA contains a series of provisions which contradict the EU acquis, and which would also hinder

UK film-makers want to retain their government subsidies - and not pay back. Given that they get massive tax breaks too, and   they want Internet companies to contribute to the cost of  censorship of copyrighted content, should they get so much public funding?  

In these austere times, a group of UK film producers is pleading  with  the government to subsidise  film production. The film industry  already gets government funding which is effectively a loan, as it has to be re-paid out of revenues. The film producers are now asking to be able to keep the money.

A letter to the Daily Telegraph, from the film producers club  known as PACT, suggests  "that the public sector should leave any returns with the production companies" and not ask for any money to be returned to the public purse.  

But their pleadings hide  the real problem in the film industry, which emerged through a

MEPS are being deceived into signing a Written Declaration which they believe is a statement on child abuse and sexual violence against women. In fact, it is a Trojan Horse for extending the Data Retention Directive. It reflects  gutter-lobbying of the worst kind.

 The Declaration from two EPP members, Tiziano Motti (Italy) and  Anna Záborská (Slovakia) purports to be a call for setting up a European Early Warning System for sex offenders. It  is not a policy proposal but is trying to get the European Parliament to establish a policy position, which could be used to pressure the Commission into drafting policy.

However, what it  actually wants is   for Directive 2006/24 EC to be extended. But it does not provide the full name of this Directive. If it did provide the name, the objective of the Written Declaration would be revealed. Apparently, 324 MEPs have already signed without bothering to check.

Directive 2006/24 EC is the Data Retention Directive which mandates ISPs and telephone companies to collect and retain communications traffic data for

A qualifying copyright holder is a new concept under the Digital Economy Act. But what is it? And is Ofcom introducing a two-tier copyright regime, where those with the valuable rights get privileges and individual authors get side-lined?

Ofcom's Initial Obligations Code, the euphemistically obscure title for the UK's 3-strikes policy,  includes something called a Qualifying Copyright Holder.

 The definition is as obtuse and incoherent as everything in the Ofcom document, which outlines the implementation of the Digital Economy Act.  The draft order defines a "qualifying Copyright Owner" as one who has "has given an estimate of the number of copyright infringement reports it intends to make in a notification period to a qualifying internet service provider".  And it  adds that the qualifying copyright owner has to meet other obligations for paying towards the costs of the 3-strikes measures.

 What it means  is that the only rights-holders who will ‘benefit' under the 3-strikes measures are those who have a