Six MEPs table AT&T's Internet-limiting proposals
-             Author: Monica Horten
 -             Published: 25 March 2009
 
Six members of the European Parliament have tabled AT&T's proposals to limit users access to the Internet.
Six MEPs have taken text supplied by the American telecoms multi-national, AT&T, and pasted it directly into amendments tabled to the Universal Services directive in the Telecoms Package. The six are Syed Kamall , Erika Mann, Edit Herczog , Zita Pleštinská , Andreas Schwab , and Jacques Toubon .
AT&T and its partner Verizon, want the regulators in Europe to keep their hands-off new network technologies which will provide the capability for broadband providers to restrict or limit users access to the Internet. They have got together with a group of other telecoms companies to lobby on this issue. Their demands pose a threat to the neutrality of the network, and at another level, to millions of web businesses in Europe.
The Universal Services directive is supposed to set out the rights of users and
consumers of telecommunications services in Europe. It should seek to guarantee their rights to access content, services and applications on the Internet, and to a clear channel connection to the open Internet. These damaging amendments seek to do the opposite, and close off the Internet by limiting rights.
As previously reported on iptegrity.com, and also in the International Herald Tribune , a lobbyist for AT&T has being pushing these amendments around Brussels for several months. The text has been widely circulated. It therefore does astonish me that MEPs would so blatantly table it.
As I have previously reported, further amendments by Malcolm Harbour, and already in his revised report of 23 February, look remarkably compliant with AT&T's demands, but do not directly cut and paste it.
On a lighter note, perhaps we should nick-name AT&T "the Amendment Typing and Tabling company"!
Compare the AT&T amendments against the text that has been tabled:
Amendement 105
Syed Kamall
(22) Given the increasing importance of
electronic communications for consumers
and businesses, users should be fully
informed of any relevant limitations
imposed on the use of electronic
communications services by the service
and/or network provider with which they
conclude the contract.
The AT&T amendments to Recital 14 (I only have a hard copy) :
Given the increasing importance of
electronic communications for consumers
and businesses, users should be fully
informed of any relevant restrictions and/or limitations
imposed on the use of electronic communications services
by the service and/or network provider with which they conclude a contract.
  
Amendement 136
Erika Mann, Edit Herczog
Amendement 137
Zita Pleštinská, Andreas Schwab
Amendement 138
Syed Kamall
3. In order to address unjustified
degradation of service and hindering or
slowing of traffic over networks, Member
States shall ensure that national regulatory
authorities are able to set minimum quality
of service requirements on an undertaking
or undertakings providing public
communications networks.
Or
The current EU legal framework and the new rules on transparency proposed in this
Directive in principle already provide for sufficient safeguards to ensure the ability of endusers
to access content and applications of their choice. In particular, a competitive market
for retail broadband access - where necessary ensured by wholesale ex-ante access
obligations under Directive 2002/19/EC - and transparency requirements regarding
restrictions of quality of service under this Directive will penalise any undue restrictions of
users' ability to access the content of their choice. If NRAs are nevertheless given the power
to intervene in QoS, it should be clarified that this can be done only to address observed
harmful practices that are not justified by legitimate interests of network management
This amendment should be compared with AT&T's proposed amendment to Article 22.3
Amendment 116
Jacques Toubon
Position commune du Conseil - acte modificatif
Recital 26
(26) A competitive market should also
ensure that users are able to have the
quality of service they require, but in
particular cases it may be necessary to
ensure that public communications
networks attain minimum quality levels so
as to address unjustified degradation of
service, usage limitations and slowing of
traffic.
Justification
The current EU legal framework and the new rules on transparency proposed in this
Directive in principle already provide for sufficient safeguards to ensure the ability of endusers
to access content and applications of their choice. In particular, a competitive market
for retail broadband access - where necessary ensured by wholesale ex-ante access
obligations under Directive 2002/19/EC - and transparency requirements regarding
restrictions of quality of service under this Directive will penalise any undue restrictions of
users' ability to access the content of their choice. If NRAs are nevertheless given the power
to intervene in quality of services, it should be clarified that this can be done only to address
observed harmful practices that are not justified by legitimate interests of network
management
This amendment should be compared with AT&T's proposed Amendment to Recital 16.
Please credit iptegrity.com if you source information from this article!
-             Article Views: 15003
 
IPtegrity politics
- UK climb-down over Apple back-door was foreseeable
 - Copyright wars 3.0: the AI challenge
 - Why would the UK take on Apple?
 - What's influencing tech policy in 2025?
 - Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
 - Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
 - EU at loggerheads over chat control
 - Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
 - Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
 - Whatever happened to the AI Bill?
 - Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
 - EU puts chat control on back burner
 - Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
 - Creation of deep fakes to be criminal offence under new law
 - AI and tech: Asks for the new government
 - How WhatsApp holds structural power
 - Meta rolls out encryption as political headwinds ease
 
About Iptegrity
Iptegrity.com is the website of Dr Monica Horten, independent policy advisor: online safety, technology and human rights. Advocating to protect the rights of the majority of law abiding citizens online. Independent expert on the Council of Europe Committee of Experts on online safety and empowerment of content creators and users.  Published author, and post-doctoral scholar, with a PhD from the University of Westminster, and a DipM from the Chartered Institute of Marketing.  Former telecoms journalist,  experienced panelist and Chair, cited in the media eg  BBC, iNews, Times, Guardian and Politico.
Online Safety
- Online Safety and the Westminster honey trap
 - Shadow bans: EU and UK diverge on user redress
 - Why the Online Safety Act is not fit for purpose
 - Fixing the human rights failings in the Online Safety Act
 - Hidden effects of the UK Online Safety Act
 - Why did X lock my account for not providing my birthday?
 - Online Safety Act: Ofcom’s 1700-pages of tech platform rules
 - Online Safety - a non-consensual Act
 - Online Safety Bill passes as US court blocks age-checks law
 - Online Safety Bill: ray of hope for free speech
 - National Crime Agency to run new small boats social media centre
 - Online Safety Bill: does government want to snoop on your WhatsApps?
 - What is content of democratic importance?
 - Online Safety Bill: One rule for them and another for us
 - Online Safety Bill - Freedom to interfere?