[Ninux-Wireless] Due articoli interessanti sulla net-neutrality

[Leandro Noferini]

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.
-------------- parte successiva --------------
Un allegato non testuale è stato rimosso....
Nome:        non disponibile
Tipo:        application/pgp-signature
Dimensione:  481 bytes
Descrizione: non disponibile
URL:         <http://ml.ninux.org/pipermail/wireless/attachments/20130805/7bc08df6/attachment-0001.sig>