Outline

Net Neutrality in Europe

Emke MAEMBE Unit "Regulatory Coordination & Users" DG CONNECT European Commission European Consumer Consultative Group Meeting 7 February 2013

The goals of todays presentation

To present you the current state of play and legislative situation regarding net neutrality in Europe

To provide information on the planned Recommendation in this field

To answer your questions

What is net neutrality?

Absolute nondiscrimination
"Network neutrality is best defined as a network design principle. The idea is that a maximally useful public information network aspires to treat all content, sites, and platforms equally. Tim Wu, Columbia Law School professor Network neutrality is the principle that all Internet traffic should be treated equally

Basic definition

Net neutrality advocates have established different definitions of network neutrality, so there is no common definition.
First come first served
a neutral Internet must forward packets on a firstcome, first served basis, without regard for qualityof-service considerations." Susan P. Crawford, Cardozo Law School professor

Network neutrality is a principle that advocates no restrictions by Internet service providers or governments on consumers' access to networks that participate in the internet.

No restrictions

Limited discrimination without quality of service (QoS) tiering

Limited discrimination and tiering

This approach allows higher fees for QoS as long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts.

United States lawmakers have introduced bills that would allow QoS discrimination as long as no special fee is charged for higher-quality service.

What is net neutrality in Europe?

There is a reference to the net neutrality principle in the Electronic Communications Framework:
End-users should have the ability to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice.

What has been done until now?

2009 Summer 2010 Nov. 2010 April 2011 25 May 2011 29 May 2012 23 July 2012
open and neutral character of the internet Wide ranging public consultation

Declaration on Net Neutrality => commitment to preserve the

electronic communications directives adopted in 2009 are properly transposed and implemented Deadline for the transposition of the new directives by the Member States Press memo published by Vice President Neelie Kroes proposing action on consumer choice and net neutrality based on BEREC's traffic management investigation results Public consultation on specific aspects of transparency, traffic management and switching (ended on 15 October 2012)

Joint summit organised together with the European Parliament Communication on the open internet and net neutrality in Europe => commitment to remain vigilant to ensure that the new EU

Why has the Commission waited so far?

1. The EU's new telecoms rules modernise the provisions regarding ease of switching, transparency and quality of service, and give National Regulatory Authorities (NRAs) the tools to deal with net neutrality issues. The Commission had to wait to make sure that Member States properly implement these rules into national law. 2. Policy makers have to take into consideration the interests of all stakeholders. 3. They have to take decisions based on facts.

1. The revised Electronic Communications Framework supports net neutrality

Choice
NRAs must promote the ability of endusers to access and distribute information or run services of their choice. Art. 8 of Framework Directive (FD)

Transparency
NRAs can oblige service providers to publish transparent, comparable, adequate and up-to-date information Art. 20 and 21 of Universal Service Directive (USD)

Net neutrality y

Quality of service

Switching
Initial commitment period shall not exceed 24m + contract offers with max 12m duration + conditions and procedures for termination shall not disincentivise operator change - Art. 30 USD

E-privacy
Surveillance of communications and related traffic data, without consent of the users concerned, shall be prohibited Art. 5 ePrivacy Directive

NRAs can set minimum quality of service requirements Art.22(3) USD

2. Net neutrality stakeholders have different goals that have to be considered

want to have: access to end-users End-Users Internet Service non-discrimination of want to have: Providers their content information on what want to: they pay for protect their affordable prices investments in access to all content the network and applications of develop new their choice business models good quality of the Transit Providers internet service want to: Keep payment flows easy switching as it is

Content Providers

3. BERECs work in the net neutrality field supports the Commissions activities
In April 2011 the Commission asked BEREC to undertake a fact-finding exercise on issues crucial to ensuring an open and neutral internet.

Issues Barriers to changing operators

BERECs results

Quality of service Transparency Blocking or throttling of internet traffic Competition issues; IP Interconnection

In October 2010, BEREC published a report on best practices to facilitate consumer switching. Additional information on switching was provided in 2011 based on the output of the Net Neutrality and Switching Questionnaire, issued by BEREC. In December 2011 BEREC published a framework for quality of service. On 26 Nov. 2012 this was followed by guidelines for quality of service. In December 2011, BEREC adopted guidelines on transparency in the context of net neutrality by identifying best practices and recommended approaches. On 29 May 2012 BEREC published the results of its traffic management investigation, which covered more than 400 fixed and mobile ISPs and gives a very good overview of traffic management practices in Europe. On 26 Nov. 2012 BEREC published documents on differentiation practices and related competition issues, and on IP Interconnection in the context of net neutrality.

Why should the Commission take action now?

The evidence from BEREC published in May shows that there is a problem regarding net neutrality on European markets Member States started to take different approaches regarding net neutrality that would lead to a fragmentation of the Digital Single Market Investors need regulatory certainty

The facts from BERECs traffic management investigation

Share of users affected:

P2P fixed: 21% (plus some of additional 1%) P2P mobile: 36% (plus some of additional 6%) VoIP mobile: 21% (plus some of additional 18%) Mobile restrictions on other specific traffic: 12% (plus some of additional 10%)

Share of operators that apply restrictions:

(X% that apply restrictions to all their subscribers plus y% that apply restrictions to some of their users) P2P fixed: 15% (plus 3%) P2P mobile: 24% (plus 11%) VoIP mobile: 3% (plus 20%) Mobile restrictions on other specific traffic: 3% (plus 5%)

Countries affected by restrictions imposed on subscribers:

P2P fixed: 20, thereof 18 EU MS P2P mobile: 23, thereof 22 EU MS VoIP mobile: 15, thereof 14 EU MS Mobile restrictions on other specific traffic: 9, thereof 8 EU MS

Source: The results of BERECs traffic management investigation:http://erg.eu.int/doc/consult/bor_12_30.pdf

Member States are adopting different approaches

In the Netherlands, on 8 May 2012 a net neutrality law has been adopted that prevents operators from charging for internet access services on the basis of the services and applications run over the internet. The net neutrality provision in the Slovenian transposition Electronic Communication Act (art. 203 of Zekom-1) sets (among others) restrictions on setting tariffs for internet access on the basis of the services and applications run by the end users. There is a proposal for legislation on net neutrality in Belgium.

A Public Consultation was carried out in this context

For the purpose of providing sound guidance, the Commission has launched a public consultation on 23 July 2012. The questions were focusing on specific aspects of transparency, traffic management and switching in an Open Internet. The consultation ended on 15 October 2012. Participation was high:
~1000 citizens and ~135 organizations & public authorities

have submitted their responses.

What does the Commission propose?

Guidance on: Transparency Switching The responsible use of traffic management tools

 Thank you for your attention!