Ciao a tutti, ne parlavamo l'altra sera alla riunione di ninux Firenze.
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/07/google-neutrality/ Dove si legge che non appena è diventato anche lui un provider Google ha subito perso l'interesse nel mantenere la fermezza a favore della net-neutrality e anzi ai suoi clienti _proibisce_ l'uso della connessione con server casalinghi. Cito dal loro contratto: Your Google Fiber account is for your use and the reasonable use of your guests. Unless you have a written agreement with Google Fiber permitting you do so, you should not host any type of server using your Google Fiber connection, Gli articoli invece da EDRigram dei quali però adesso non riesco a mandarvi un link perché il sito non mi risponde e riguarda invece la situazione europea: Da edizione del 6 - 12 luglio … Commission's legislative plans on net neutrality unclear A leaked version of the Commission's forthcoming proposed Regulation laying down measures to complete the European single market for electronic communications does not directly mention net neutrality. However, Article 20 (2) says that within contractual limits, ' providers of electronic communications to the public shall not restrict the foregoing freedoms by employing traffic management practices solely or primarily to block, slow down or otherwise degrade specific services or applications'. Certain exceptions are provided, e.g. to implement a court order. NGO EDRi has claimed that the draft proposal represents 'not neutrality' based on its interpretation of Article 20 (1) of the draft on quality of service, which only states that service providers shall be 'free to agree with each other on the treatment of the related data volumes or on the transmission of traffic with a defined quality of service'. However, EDRi does not mention Article 20 (2). The Commission is due to publish its proposal in early September Da edizione del 13 19 luglio Commission's leaked draft Regulation causes concern The leaked version of the Commission's forthcoming proposed Digital Single Market Regulation has caused concern among German politicians due to its apparent lack of guarantees for net neutrality. Economy Minister Philipp Rösler has said that what he has seen Is insufficient. He is sticking to his own plans to forbid ISPs from forging agreements with content providers to enable preferential access to their content. MEP Jan-Philipp Albrecht (Greens/EFA, Germany), who campaigns for ' citizens' rights in the digital age' has also criticised the draft. He has expressed concerns that standards of protection in national laws would be lowered by the Regulation, and claims that the draft text would legitimise Deutsche Telekom's much criticised plans to change its price-charging structure. EU Digital Agenda Commissioner Kroes has reiterated that the EU is to come forward with rules ensuring net neutrality as there are too many Europeans concerned that Internet services are blocked and throttled by ISPs. She does not consider data caps as a problem: as long as contract terms are clear, consumers can choose a service they see fit. She has also underlined that prohibiting ISPs from providing paid-for premium services could weaken the Internet sector and threaten its capacity to invest in networks and innovate. Da edizione 27 luglio 2 agosto Germany: IT association calls for competition rather than regulation BITKOM, the principal German IT trade association, has become the latest stakeholder to warn the government against imposing a general net neutrality law. BITKOM has published a study conducted for it by the Centrum für Europäische Politik (CEP) entitled 'Net neutrality as a regulation goal: a regulative and legal analysis', which looks at this topic from many angles. Regarding the proposed net neutrality law, the study says it represents 'a disproportionate interference with the commercial freedom of the ISP and the content service providers. At the same time it has a welfare-reducing effect. (Also) The net neutrality regulation is unnecessary in view of the existing possibilities of general competition law, both at German and European level' the study states. BITKOM concludes in a press release that it makes sense to allow different price and delivery packages to consumers, and that a general prohibition on differentiated data transfers would lead to inefficiencies. It recalls that Internet infrastructure has mainly been built through private investment. Da Leaked version, art 20 Article 20 - Quality of service, freedom to provide and avail of open internet access and reasonable traffic management 1. End-users shall be free to access and distribute information and content, run applications and use services of their choice. In pursuit of the foregoing freedom, end-users shall be free to agree on data volumes, speeds and general quality characteristics with providers of electronic communications to the public and, in accordance with any such agreements relative to data volumes, to avail of any offers by providers of content, applications and services, including offers with defined quality of service. To the same end, providers of content, applications and services and providers of electronic communications to the public shall be free to agree with each other on the treatment of the related data volumes or on the transmission of traffic with a defined quality of service. The exercise of these freedoms shall not be restricted by national competent authorities, or, as regards the freedom laid down for end-users, by providers of electronic communications to the public, save in accordance with the provisions of this Regulation, the Directives and other provisions of Union law. End users shall be facilitated in the exercise of these freedoms by the provision of complete information in accordance with Article 21, paragraphs 1 and 4, and Article 22, paragraph 2, of this Regulation. 2. Within the limits of any contracted data volumes or speeds, providers of electronic communications to the public shall not restrict the foregoing freedoms by employing traffic management practices solely or primarily to block, slow down or otherwise degrade specific services or applications, or specific classes thereof, unless, and only to the extent that, such restrictions are necessary to: a) implement a legislative provision or a court order; b) preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via this network, and the end-users' terminals; c) prevent the transmission of unsolicited communications to end-users who have given their prior consent to such restrictive measures ; d) minimise the effects of exceptional congestion provided that equivalent types of traffic are treated equally. 3. National regulatory authorities shall closely monitor and ensure the effective ability of end-users to exercise the freedoms defined in paragraph 1, the compliance with paragraph 2, and the transparency and proportionality of traffic management practices in general. In order to prevent the general degradation of quality of service for Internet access services or for certain types of traffic, or to safeguard the ability of end-users to access and distribute content or information or to run applications and services of their choice, national regulatory authorities shall have the power to impose minimum non-discriminatory quality of service requirements on providers of electronic communications to the public. National regulatory authorities shall provide the Commission, in good time before imposing any such requirements, with a summary of the grounds for action, the envisaged requirements and the proposed course of action. This information shall also be made available to BEREC. The Commission may, having examined such information, make comments or recommendations thereupon, in particular to ensure that the envisaged requirements do not adversely affect the functioning of the internal market. The envisaged requirements shall not be implemented during a period of two months from the receipt of complete information by the Commission unless otherwise agreed between the Commission and the national regulatory authority, or the Commission has informed the national regulatory authority of a shortened examination period, or the Commission has made comments or recommendations. National regulatory authorities shall take the utmost account of the Commission's comments or recommendations when deciding on the requirements and shall inform the Commission [and BEREC] of the implemented requirements. 4. The Commission may, by means of an implementing act adopted pursuant to Article 27 of this Regulation, define uniform conditions for the implementation of the obligations of national competent authorities under this Article.
pgpS_KVR0Gu5G.pgp
Description: PGP signature
_______________________________________________ Wireless mailing list Wireless@ml.ninux.org http://ml.ninux.org/mailman/listinfo/wireless