Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday October 28 2015, @03:16PM   Printer-friendly
from the win-some-lose-some dept.

The BBC reports:

A series of amendments to a regulation on how internet traffic is managed in Europe were all rejected by MEPs.

Proponents of net neutrality, who demand that web traffic be treated equally by networks, have already criticised the move.

The existing legislation, which was accepted, will be developed into regulations.

[...]

Although some campaigners had suggested there might be growing support for the amendments within the parliament, all were voted down in large majorities.

It is thought that many MEPs would have been reluctant to begin a process of amending the regulation given that it might have delayed another aspect of the rules - the abolition of mobile data roaming charges.

Later on they detail the problems of the rules that have been adopted:

Part of the problem with the rules in their current form, argued Joe McNamee at the European Digital Rights campaign group, is that they are ambiguous.

"As the text currently stands there is no indication as to how much abuse of dominance would be permissible under this arrangement," he told the BBC.

The sort of scenarios that could impact internet use include the creation of "fast lanes" and "slow lanes" - traffic prioritised depending on fees paid by content providers - or the creation of "zero ratings" in which some services may be accessed without using up any of the internet user's data quota.

In Belgium, for example, some mobile phone companies currently allow unlimited access to Twitter and Facebook while all other data usage is part of a monthly plan. In a few countries such as the Netherlands, such practices are not allowed.


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:45PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday October 28 2015, @04:45PM (#255683)

    Well, as I understand it, an anti-theft law written the same way as these "net neutrality" rules would essentially be: "You may not steal, unless you've got a good reason to steal." While not really saying what would be a good reason to steal.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   +1  
       Interesting=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Interesting' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   1  
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by anubi on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:25AM

    by anubi (2828) on Thursday October 29 2015, @01:25AM (#255843) Journal

    Seems all of our laws are written that way. It seems left up to the judicial system to ferret out what infraction will be prosecuted as a crime, and which one won't.

    The ones that stand out to me are the way eminent domain laws, military conscription laws ( draft ), and intellectual property laws are written. Written in such a manner they apply to the goose but not the gander. Surprisingly, unlike the monkey referred to a few posts back, the geese keep taking it.

    --
    "Prove all things; hold fast that which is good." [KJV: I Thessalonians 5:21]