Hello "List", first of all I'm admitting fully and heartfelt that I've
not been reading any part of the report mentioned (apart from the
extracts presented on this list)...
However, I raise my voice at this moment as I'm suspecting (given we all
want to reach an audience beyond this list) that this is pointing to a
fundamental problem. The problem being that the intricate details of any
proposed legislation, report, inquiry or system are all so complex that
they more than often shadow the the broader basic questions.
How do we support: genuine freedom of speech, the infrastructure to
sustain it, the availability of "uncontrolled" utilisation of said
infrastructure etc. In short: how do we keep internet decentralised yet
not nationalised? Distributed as it was built (and in my mind), intended
to be.
With what seems to be potentially catastrophic changes being made to the
core management of the internet. I can't but feel that the energy of
this discussion is directed the wrong way. Please correct me if I'm
erroneous.
Best, Jonas
On 2012-12-07 20:34, Erik Josefsson wrote:
I agree. In particular wrt point two, I think it would be good to remind
the authors of what we said in the 2010 November ACTA resolution, and
repeated ever after, that we reminded
"the Commission that it is precluded by the 2003
Inter-Institutional Agreement from supporting self- and
co-regulatory mechanisms where fundamental rights, such as the right
to freedom of expression, are at stake".
http://euwiki.org/w/index.php?title=ACTA%2FNovember_diffs&diff=15711&oldid=15710
You're simply not allowed to abandon fundamental rights to be upheld by
voluntary commercial agreements. Kind of Rule of Law basics.
There were a couple of traffic managements amendments floating around in
the Telecoms Package, but they never took off, maybe you like AM2 and
AM7 (from a non-supported AM-package)?
http://euwiki.org/2002/22/EC/THIRD_READING_TARGET/Amendments
Best regards.
//Erik
On 12/07/12 18:30, James Losey wrote:
We're both looking at the same report. While the report does not some
problems transparency, I didn't see it provide other concrete solutions.
Recommendations for Government and the European Commission (from p. 8/51)
1 Need to consider ways to expand the existing
regulatory framework by the principles of nonblocking and
non-discrimination to ensure the
internet remains an open platform
2 If a self-regulatory or co-regulatory solution is a
preferred option, it must have a robust, builtin compliance and
enforcement mechanism
alongside independent verification, oversight
and sanctions, complaint handling and redress
The report aslo recommends OfCom work on methods to compare
traffic management between services, rather than work on restricting
types of traffic management that will be harmful to the open internet.
On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 3:03 PM, Linus Nordberg <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
Vilken rapport syftar du på?
Jag har inte läst hela rapporten från Consumer Focus, men får
intrycket
att den tvärtom är kritisk till de som påstår att transparens skulle
lösa alla problem
The findings of the research showed that
increased transparency for traffic management
alone is unlikely to safeguard effectively the
principle of the open internet and prevent
discriminatory restrictions online.
(s. 5)
Yet policy makers believe
increased transparency about the term
can safeguard the principle of the open
internet, drive switching and enhance
competition in the broadband market.
(s. 4)
Yet these efforts to improve transparency raise
concerns. Specifically, there are questions over:
●● consumers’ ability to understand and determine
the extent of traffic management practices, and
their impact on their internet access
●● which part of the online chain is at fault
(for example, broadband provider, content
provider or end users’ equipment and
software)
●● what is genuine traffic management and what
is unfair practice
(s. 5)
James Losey <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote
Fri, 7 Dec 2012 14:44:20 +0100:
| A major problem with this report is the suggestion that
transparency is a
| sufficient approach to addressing concerns over network management.
|
| J
|
| On Fri, Dec 7, 2012 at 2:30 PM, Patrik Wallström
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
|
| > Brittiska Consumer Focus har sammanställt en undersökning av
konsumenters
| > uppfattning av operatörers traffic management. Åtminstone
summeringen är
| > intressant att läsa för den oinsatte:
| >
| >
| >
http://www.consumerfocus.org.uk/files/2012/11/Lost-on-the-broadband-super-highway.pdf>
| > "Overall, our research found that consumers
| > have very limited awareness of the term ‘traffic
| > management’. Consumers do not understand the
| > term, find it difficult to access relevant information
| > and, when they do, struggle to understand it.
| > The research indicated that without explaining
| > traffic management and its impact on the user
| > experience, any information provided is not
| > meaningful to consumers and is therefore not
| > taken into consideration. The research found no
| > difference in perceived transparency between
| > BSG and non-BSG signatories."
| >
| > ...
| >
| >
