The European Commission has sneaked out its position on the Telecoms Package second reading. Decoded, it calls for the Package  to seal in the right of governments and broadband providers to restrict the Internet.

DG Information Society has quietly released  its position on the Telecoms Package Second Reading, just as everyone is heading off for the summer holidays. No doubt Commissioner Viviane  Reding was hoping no-one would see it. Why? It calls for a "compromise" text which the Council of Ministers was trying to push onto the  European Parliament, which could have the effect of giving permission to governments to block access to Internet services and applications.

The so-called "compromise" is the replacement of Amendment 138 ( which seeks to protect users rights on the Internet) with an alternative which was drafted by the Council (sometimes known as the ‘fake 138').  The replacement, when considered in context with other Amendments in the Package,  will seal in to the Telecoms Framework a right for

Do the amendments which would impose ‘conditions limiting'  access to Internet services and applications say the same thing in all languages? And what do they mean? The European Parliment's German translation of the Telecoms Package could clarify the matter.

When I recently presented in Germany, and showed the text of the key  Telecoms Package amendments  in German, there was a comment that the German translation might have got a slightly different interpretation from the English.

So here is the text in eight of the other EU  languages, where I was able to distinguish ( I hope correctly) two of the relevant articles.  The key text in the Telecoms Package is that which refers to ‘conditions limiting access to'  Internet services and applications. This is the text which will permit broadband providers to restrict or block access to services such as

When it comes to China, the European Commission understands perfectly that Internet filters are about censorship and limiting freedom of expression. So why are they  blind, deaf and dumb to it in the Telecoms Package?

My attention has just been drawn to comments by Martin Selmayr,  European Commission press spokesman  for DG Information Society,  regarding the Chinese government's Green Dam initiative to censor the Internet in order to ‘protect the children'.

 Mr Selmayr accused the Chinese of using the ruse of protecting children in order to limit freedom of expression via Internet filtering technology. What is really interesting is that when it comes to the EU Telecoms Package, Mr Selmayr's excellent

Viviane Reding says she will tackle the collecting societies on pan-European licencing and she will back projects for cloud computing. That should be good news.  But Our Lady of the U-turns has done it again. Because in the same speech she calls for the Telecoms Package to come into force, ignoring that it is about restricting innovative Internet services, and tries to belittle the importance of Amendment 138 which seeks to safeguard users' rights.

In a speech to the Lisbon council in Brussels last week, European Commissioner for Information Society, Viviane Reding, has vowed to tackle the biggest obstacle to so-called legal online content services  - the collecting societies and their resistance to a pan-European licence for Internet music and film rights.

 "In my view,growing internet piracy is a vote of

Viviane Reding, who is currently still the EU Commissioner for Information Society,  has renewed a call to ‘seal the deal' on the Telecoms Package. Her  haste  to get the Package all wrapped up seems a little indecent.  Amendment 138, the reason why the Package has not been sealed, raises issues concerning the protection of   fundamental rights on the Internet. And, as European Commissioner, she is a guardian of the Treaties, including the Charter of Fundamental Rights. But what if she takes up the seat she won as MEP? 

Speaking at a telecoms industry event, she said "In this time of economic crisis, we

But will it help the EU to resist a US push for multi-lateral 3-strikes?

The political significance of the Telecoms Package Amendment 138 has been  raised a notch or two with the revelation that its fate will determine what the EU will agree to in the ACTA - Anti-counterfeiting Trade Agreement.

The ACTA is a multi-lateral agreement on intellectual property  enforcement,  being pushed by the US Trade Representative,  which is an international lobby for US corporate interests - in respect of copyright, the powerful Hollywood studios and US broadcasters. ACTA is being negotiated in secret, however, the content is slowly emerging.   It aims at stringent measures to enforce copyright on a global basis, and among other things, deals with Internet downloading. Requests for public access to ACTA documents have been refused, but one did emerge on Wikileaks.

 Canadian lawyer Michael Geist  reports  on his blog that there is a rift between the EU and the US in the ACTA

A leaked document shows that the rapporteur for users rights does not get the Internet rights issue.

A document authored  by the MEP Malcolm Harbour, rapporteur for the Universal Services and Users rights directive, attempts to dismiss the users rights Amendment 138 saying that it is "badly placed and lost" and "concerns only a principle regarding restrictions".  The document appears to be a note written for internal use. His comments are interesting in light of claims by proponents of Amendment 138 that they have protected users rights and that Internet is now a fundamental right.

 He compares Amendment 138   to the so-called "compromise"agreement which concerns "measures taken regarding end-users rights of access to or use of services and applications".

 Of particular interest, is that he suggests that the phrasing on "measures" creates  a right for end-users. The

Malcolm Harbour, rapporteur for users rights in the Telecoms Package, has  attacked colleagues who supported an amendment which protects the right to  freedom of expression in respect of the Internet.

In an email circulated to all MEPs, Malcolm Harbour has attacked the  Liberal group in the European Parliament. He accuses them of  stalling the entire Telecoms Package  and says that the Amendment 138, which seeks to protect users rights in respect of freedom of expression and the Internet is not important  and ‘unconnected with any of the main changes in the Telecoms Package'. His complaint  rings hollow, given that an important users rights amendment in his directive was replaced by one that permits restriction of users rights, and the replacement was  never voted on by either his committee (IMCO) or the full Parliament. 

 His email reveals that there was a last-minute meeting of the Liberal party group, which took the decision to

Telecoms Package surprise result as European Parliament makes a vote for democracy and civil liberties on the Internet. But it is  not clear how much of a win it is. 

Good news on Trautmann as the original  Amendment 138 passes.

Bad news on Harbour - Internet limits (blocks) could become law. 

**Updated July 7th - See below.**

The Trautmann report in the Telecoms Package will go to a third reading following the vote in favour of a users rights amendment by the European Parliament  this afternoon.  The original Amendment 138 passed with 407 in favour, 57 against and 151 abstentions. The vote means that the EU  debate on the future of the Internet and civil liberties will continue into the Swedish Presidency, at least in the context of the overall Framework legislation. But the Internet-blocking amendments in the Universal Services and Users Rights directive have been carried, and it seems that they could now go on to become law. It is not clear at the moment, whether or not the Harbour report also goes to a 3rd  reading. 

**Catherine Trautmann: "When a single point of the "compromise" was not adopted,  the whole Package will go to Conciliation"

**European Parliament President: "I think the Parliament has understood the consequences of what it has done" 

On the other hand, the vote for Amendment 138 was a political signal against French President Sarkozy and his plans for graduated response / 3-strikes copyright enforcement measures. Likewise, it sends a signal to other EU governments such as the UK, Spain and Italy which are considering similar copyright enforcment proposals, that such measures are out of  line with established European Internet policies and  fundamental rights. 

The vote was tense. Rebecca Harms (German, Greens) spoke twice to change the order on the voting list, which

 MEP Malcolm Harbour has attacked the OpenNet coalition of user NGOs and ISPs on the European Parliament website. The  rapporteur for the Universal Services and Users Rights directive, accuses a group of knowledgable users of 'pure fantasy.' His article  appears to be part of  a series of moves to close down all opposition to the Telecoms Package plenary vote today in the European Parliament.  

 The OpenNet coalition, which runs the Blackout Europe site has been angered by an attack from Malcolm Harbour which  accuses them of ‘pure fantasy' in respect of their interpretation of the Telecoms Package amendments. He names the Blackout Europe website on  a ‘major  news ‘ page posted on the European Parliament's website, where he says he  is "astonished" to see their text  and claims that "the Telecoms Package has never been anything to do with restrictions on the Internet".  

The Opennet coalition has responded with a robust rebuttal of Mr Harbour's ‘fantasy' allegation and suggest that, on the contrary,  his claims are misinforming the European public. It  exposes  the real issues  behind his claims by citing several examples where he himself has been quoted discussing restrictions to Internet services (see link below). The coaltion consists of NGOs from almost all member states, including Italy's

A key new amendment  enshrining the operator's right to block Internet content will not be voted on. It is tucked into the "compromise" document, which will be voted as a block.This appears to be a breach of procedure and should be seriously questioned. 

This is amendment number 103 on the HARBOUR report. Within this document, you will find Article 2a and Recital 22a. Neither of these was voted on in the IMCO committee vote on  31 March. At that point, they had not been written. Mr Harbour said that he wanted to re-write the original Amendment 166, but did not indicate how he proposed to do so. The committee voted on the original Amendment 166 and carried it.

 Article 2a and Recital 22a of the Universal Services and users rights directive, both say the same thing - that operators will nto be prohibited from blocking Internet users access

Who gives Vodafone  the right to decide whether or not I need my Blackberry emails on a Saturday afternoon?  At the heart of problem with  the Telecoms Package, is such a very simple question. With a  few simple words, "conditions limiting access to and/or use of applications and services" the Telecoms Package reverses the users right to roam in cyberspace, into an operator's right to set up cyber road-blocks.   A licence to chill.

 I am grateful  to Celia Blanco for additional analysis which contributed to this article. 

I find it odd that in Europe in 2009, I am writing an article asking politicians  to protect free speech. But the Telecoms Package  represents a serious attack on our civil liberties, in a most sinister way. Sinister, because it gives the industries concerned the go-ahead to  use powerful equipment and turn it against their users, if they choose to do so.  

What is the problem with the Telecoms Package that Internet users don't like?

Basically, it is quite simple. The Telecoms Package legalises something the operators have already started doing - that is, selectively blocking Internet services as and when it suits them.

On Saturday afternoon, 2 May,   Vodafone blocked my Blackberry emails (Oh, yes, they did!). Now,  should Vodafone decide whether or not I need my Blackberry emails on a Saturday afternoon? My heckles go up. No, of course, they shouldn't! I decide!

This is precisely the policy question that  MEPs are being asked  to consider with the Telecoms Package. In a simplistic and personal way, I am using it to illustrate an abstract issue. Should the Parliament legitimise bad

The fight to defend the Internet has been taken up by the three smaller parties in the European Parliament - Greens, Independents and Left groups. They have tabled a group of amendments to the Telecoms Package -  dubbed the Citizen's Rights Amendments - which guarantee users rights of access to Internet services. They provide an antidote to the Internet-limiting "compromise"  by the Parliament and  will have the effect of keeping the Internet open for users and business. And the reinforce the position taken in the Bono and Lambrinidis votes. 

A bundle of amendments designed to put the  user back into the heart  of the Telecoms Package has been tabled for the plenary vote next Wednesday by the three smaller groups in the European Parliament.  Dubbed the  Citizens rights amendments, (see below for links)  they provide  a formal guarantee of access for Internet users for the first time in EU law, plus  provisions which empower national regulators to oversee the users interests in Internet access provision.  They were tabled by the GUE/NGL (left) group, the Ind/Dem group (Independent), and (most of them) byt the Green group.

 The big problem with the  so-called "compromise" agreed by Parliament's rapporteurs with the Council, is that it is drafted to meet the network operator's perceived interests, and not users. Contrary to the rapporteurs' claims, it  actually bears the risk of reducing  

Malcolm Harbour has launched an attack on Swedish Internet-defender MEP Christofer Fjellner. And the users rights directive rapporteur   says that the discussions around Internet  rights amendments 138 and 166 were ‘deeply frustrating'   because they ‘could derail two years' of work'.  Is there an   implication  that he has spent two years on an industry deal, which these amendments could squash?  It does suggest that  his amendments to the directive are not, as he claims, designed for users, but for network operators.

*** In this video, taken at an EU conference in Prague on 16th April, Mr Harbour says that "net neutrality and content" are "comparatively minor issues" and that "service limitations...could certainly include restrictions on access to services like voice over IP..customers may wish to buy a service with limitations if it's cheaper".   He is speaking about the Telecoms Package. His comments confirm the view that 'limitations' in his "compromise"  to the Universal Services and Users Rights directive, are indeed about blocking Internet services and "packaging" the Internet.  (Scroll to session 2, Mr Harbour is first speaker)  ***

Malcolm Harbour, the European Parliament rapporteur for the Universal Services and Users Rights directive, has launched an attack on Swedish MEP Christofer Fjellner,  in a letter sent to all members of the European Parliament last night. The letter (see below) asks MEPs not to support the users rights amendment 166,  and defends  Mr Harbour's own position (see also below).  Although  in itself  the letter

Details are now emerging of the Faustian pact by the European Parliament on Internet users rights.  It was agreed in a trialogue meeting between the rapporteurs Catherine Trautmann and Malcolm Harbour, and  the Council, last night.

 A new Recital and Amendment have replaced  Amendment 138, which is no longer there - in my opinion,  they have an entirely different meaning.   See below for an analysis .  NB this article has been amended on 1 May, with alternative analysis.

Catherine Trautmann and Malcolm Harbour, the two rapporteurs on the main Telecoms Package directives, have given in to the Council. The result is not good for Internet users, and will permit  blocking practices by network operators.   I have put below the new Recital and Article that Mrs Trautmann has agreed to replace Amendment 138. Emails have been forwarded around the European Parliament to say

Harbour and Trautmann make a Faustian pact with the Council. Internet users rights  exchanged for an easy ride. Unless the  European Parliament flexes its muscle next week, this horrendous  Package will be law by June. And Mr Harbour -  rapporteur for the "users rights" directive  - complains that the users got in the way of his negotiations with industry. 

News agencies this evening are reporting a back-room deal in which the European Parliament has sold Internet users rights in favour of a bad law that the UK and French governments  want. It will also suit the large telecommunications companies, but smaller operators and other industries stand to lose out.  Amendment 138, voted by a majority in the committee vote last week, has been altered to facilitate a quasi-legal Hadopi,  in an about-face by the rapporteur Catherine Trautmann.   MEP Malcolm Harbour's UK-driven amendments to permit Internet blocking by network operators are now officially part of the Telecoms Package.

An AFP report says that Mrs Trautman has agreed to

The latest agreement between the European Parliament and the Council reverses users rights in respect of the Internet, and confirms telcos right to block access at their discretion. Users  lose their  rights to digitally roam. Operators gain the  right to block them.

Malcolm Harbour, rapporteur for the Universal Services Directive in the Telecoms Package, has reversed out  users rights that were carried in a majority vote by the European Parliament last September. He proposes to replace Amendment 166 - Article 32(a) of the First Reading text, with a new text which states that telcos will not be prohibited from blocking users - see below. De facto, the new text means that telcos may block users, with immunity.

And it is the polar opposite of the original amendment that it is supposed to be replacing. Amendment 166 complements the

Amendment 138 was saved tonight  in a surprise European Parliament committee vote. It is another  political signal of the European Parliament's disapproval of graduated response / 3-strikes measures. But the problems with the Telecoms Package remain, and users access to  the Internet may still be limited or blocked  under other provisions and there may be little that ussers can do about it. 

The ITRE Committee voted 40 in favour and 4 against Amendment 138. I noted that the rapporteur, Catherine Trautmann had given it a plus sign on the voting list.  I'm informed that only the 4 French EPP MEPs voted against. The German MEP Erika Mann ( PSE)  seems to have abstained - it is notable that Erika Mann was one of the MEPs who tabled the AT&T amendments. The result means that the Parliament is

European Parliament back-room bargain sacrifices Internet users rights

Amendment 138, which  protects Internet users rights against blocking  and 3-strikes measures, has been scrapped in a back-room EU deal. The European Parliament has sacrificed users rights, in order to appease the French and UK government demands, so that they can move ahead with plans for 3-strikes and  protocol blocking. 

Amendment 138 is to be deleted.  The pressure is coming from the UK and French governments, and it is likely to be a completely intolerable situation for the rapporteur, the French Socialist MEP Catherine Trautmann. Nevertheless, she knows the importance of Amendment 138, in symbolising the protection of users interests against those of the large corporations. At home, in Paris, her Party has opposed the Sarkozy regime and its 3-strikes law (also known as the Creation and Internet law). That opposition saw the successful rejection of the Creation and Internet law just over a week ago.

There will be a Recital, which Mrs Trautmann is trying to sell to her colleagues as

Should someone tell  the Commissioner for Information Society what is really  inside the Telecoms Package? According to a report in a German newspaper,  she is under the impression that it will deal with operators who block access to services.

In an article in the  German financial newspaper Handelsblatt, EU Information Society Commissioner Viviane Reding, is reported as saying that national regulatory authorities should take action against network operators taking advantage of their own market dominance to  block new, innovative services. She was commenting on the news that T-Mobile is  blocking Skype on iPhones and Blackberrys. Her threat is apparently that T-Mobile could be in breach of EU competition law.

However, Mrs Reding  cannot be  up to speed on developments in the Telecoms Package - this is a  revision to EU telecoms law and the current draft will legally permit operators to