Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Government News Your Rights Online

Threat To Net Neutrality In Europe 147

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the wishing-for-transparency-in-government dept.
Narcissus writes to tell us that the European Parliament is planning a vote in the Industry, Transport, Energy (ITRE) committee that could reintroduce amendment 138 (currently amendment 46) which deals with safeguards to user rights on the internet and graduated response schemes. There are several online campaigns trying to drive awareness and action already but there is limited time to act. "The Council may propose a compromise version of amendment 138/46 that is completely neutralized, or that may even become the opposite of the original by allowing the 'three strikes' scheme instead of preventing it. According to the latest negotiations, am.138/46 wouldn't anymore be an article (that must be transposed by Member States in their law) but a mere recital that has just indicative value. It is urgent to contact the members of the ITRE committee to advise them to reject compromise with the Council that failed to respect the intent of the original amendment. The best would be once again to approve the amendment."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Threat To Net Neutrality In Europe

Comments Filter:
  • So they may do something, or they may do something else, or even the opposite. Call back later.
    • by commodore64_love (1445365) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:49PM (#27652209) Journal

      Call back later? Wrong answer. Once the amendment's passed, it's too late to call your representative. We Americans have discovered this from personal experience wherein today's proposal suddenly passes the Congress tomorrow, and now we're stuck with the law. Too late to whine after it's a done deal.

      NOW is the time to call your reps.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:50PM (#27652237)

      Yes. The vote hasn't happened yet.

      Generally speaking its best to raise awareness of an important vote before it happens, so that you can contact your representatives and make it clear what you expect them to do. You know, so that your representatives actually represent you. Believe it or not democracy doesn't have to happen with elected officials doing what they want while you mutter under your breath, you are allowed as a citizen to actually participate in the process by making your opinions clear to those people who make the vote.

      • Re:maybe, maybe not (Score:5, Informative)

        by V!NCENT (1105021) on Monday April 20, 2009 @05:58PM (#27653267)

        For all the Dutch people here (part of the EU), mail this to the NOS News at nosbinnenland@nos.nl to send your press tips and raise awareness.

        The NOS news has been reporting on censorship last week with that local newspaper... I am sure some of you will remember, so they will express interest in this too.

        Hint at the Australian censorship as to why 'child-porn' blocking went instantly into censorship of Wikileaks and Wikipedia among other legitimate websites. You can alos find that block-list on Wikileaks.

        If more people than just me tip them about it via email then I am sure they will air it tommorow!

        Don't think that some one else will already do that beauce usualy no-one does because they think "ah a lot of people will read this so I don't have to"!

    • by Shark (78448) on Monday April 20, 2009 @05:02PM (#27652415)

      And if they don't get what they initially wanted, they'll try another law, and if that doesn't go through, they'll try another law... Until they finally manage to come up with the perfect timing when nobody is paying attention and it goes through.

      That or they'll just declare that it's in effect, they can get away with that more and more these days. It's not like voting them out would change anything.

      • by V!NCENT (1105021)
        Once again, where is the cDc when you need them... do these guys/galls actually exist anyway?
  • Give it Up! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Virtucon (127420) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:15PM (#27651659)

    As long as carriers can set their own policies for traffic carried across networks that they own, Net Neutrality is a dead topic.

    Free Enterprise dictates that the carriers have the right to price services according to market demand. If your carrier starts adopting tiered pricing or starts prioritizing your traffic in ways that it sees fit, then let your feet do the walking to another carrier.

    Free Markets do eventually work their way around to providing the services people want for the price they're willing to pay.

    • Re:Give it Up! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by notarockstar1979 (1521239) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:28PM (#27651871) Journal
      Voting with your feet assumes that the market is healthy enough to have other carriers that don't practice the exact same thing you're trying to get away from. I'm not in Europe, so the outcome of this does not DIRECTLY affect me. I just like playing devil's advocate some days.
      • Re:Give it Up! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Virtucon (127420) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:40PM (#27652069)

        I have at least 3 hard-wired choices to my home, both high speed. There's at least 4 3G wireless carriers I can deal with so I think I do have some choice at least where I'm at, so YMMV. I do agree that there needs to be a healthy market though but why then do we in the US give monopolies to companies that just run cables to your house or buy a set of frequencies? To give them incentives to build out the infrastructure. I believe that that system needs to change a bit and only allow them full monopoly power over that investment for a certain period of time.

        If you look at Time Warner's recent "Tiered" evaluation flop you can see that people can and do influence these decisions as well.

    • Yes and no. Do those networks cross land that they own?

      • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

        by Virtucon (127420)

        I have Cable, Fiber and Twisted Pair all going across my "Easement" on my land. The Easement was granted in my Deed to the City so yes there's a civic responsibility to allow for valid utility concerns to use that Easement to provide services for the community. That doesn't however prohibit multiple companies from putting in their own cabling infrastructure just becase somebody else did it already. The providers have paid the city, paid the contractors and bought the cable and fiber. They own that infra

    • Re:Give it Up! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by damburger (981828) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:33PM (#27651959)

      Yeah, because free markets did such a good job with the banking industry.

      The rational equilibrium model of the free market fundamentalists has gone tits up. Move on, and wise up. Collusion, misinformation, and group think are quite capable of doing for the IT sector what they have done for the financial sector.

      There needs to be citizen participation in both politics and economics. Economies are not worthwhile aims in themselves, they are merely tools we use to coordinate society - whenever they don't work for people, we should seek to change them.

      • Re:Give it Up! (Score:5, Interesting)

        by commodore64_love (1445365) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:59PM (#27652355) Journal

        >>>Yeah, because free markets did such a good job with the banking industry.

        Not a free market. It's controlled by the *monopoly* called the Reserve Bank, which is itself controlled by the Congress, which mandated in the mid-1990s that banks must hand-out "no money down" loans. That eventually led to the housing crisis. That is not a free market. That's an oligarchy of 535 men.

        A true free market would not have a Reserve Bank setting interest rates, but instead have interest rates that are set by each independent bank, and these rates would move up-and-down with supply-and-demand. Furthermore Congress would allow banks to decide for themselves who qualifies and who does not qualify for loans, based on income.

        Yes that means some would hear the word "no". Oh well.

        • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

          by Yokaze (70883)

          > which mandated in the mid-1990s that banks must hand-out "no money down" loans.

          Care to back this up?
          Also, that is a theory, which is totally new to me. And frankly, even assuming that might be the case, I fail to see how "no money down" loans can lead to the sub-prime crisis.
          The canonical explanation which blames bad risk assessment (banks, rating agencies) seems much more plausible to me.

          > A true free market would not have a Reserve Bank setting interest rates,[...]

          The Fed is only setting the inter

          • >>>The Fed is only setting the interest rate at which banks can borrow from other banks. Your interest rate and that of mortgages are decided by your bank in competition with other banks.

            And those rates are typically tied to the Fed rates. In fact my credit card contract states, "Federal Reserve Prime Rate + 10.9%". I don't have a mortgage but if I did, I'm sure it would have a similar clause if it was the variable-type mortgage. That's not a free market, but a controlled market where the centra

            • by Yokaze (70883)

              The wikipedia article on CRA [wikipedia.org] shows no sign of a requirement of "No money down" loans. It also states, that only certain banks were regulated by the CRA, and interestingly:

              2008 study by Traiger & Hinckley LLP, a law firm that counsels financial institutions on CRA compliance, found that CRA regulated institutions were less likely to make subprime loans, and when they did the interest rates were lower.

              While correlation may not be causation, no correlation is a fairly good indicator for no causation.

              > A

          • by damburger (981828)

            The canonical explanation which blames bad risk assessment (banks, rating agencies) seems much more plausible to me.

            And it also sounds more plausible to most economists - it just sounds implausible to rabid libertarians and neoliberals who are emotionally invested in the idea of perfect markets. To them, the idea that markets are not the ideal means to communicate economic information (the risk of a loan being defaulted, for example) is quite literally a heresy.

            You can't get them to admit they are wrong, bu

            • No libertarian thinks the market is purpose...er, perfect. They simply think it's better than the alternative of government control. Like the current crisis where the government is artificially propping-up bad businesses. That is the wrong approach, and the proper approach is to let those businesses go bankrupt, and then the pieces can be sold off to healthier businesses.

              The free market is basically natural selection in action - yes there are hard times and yes some organisms/ businesses don't survive, b

              • by damburger (981828)

                I stopped reading when you invoked natural selection as a political guideline rather than a scientific phenomenon.

                Appealing to 'nature' is intellectually dishonest, illogical, and as history shows us - downright dangerous. Nature does a lot of things, doesn't mean we should imitate them.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by asdfndsagse (1528701)

          your idea is completely broken because under your idea a bank could make known bad loans and barrow on margin (thats what fractional reserve banking is all about) from other banks in a circle until then all go down at once and the CEOs take the cash. This is basically what happened.

          The problem with zero regulation is that it creates a boom and bust cycle where the banks repeatedly give you a lolli-pop and then slam a pineapple up your ass. And zero regulation is impossible with a modern system, it will alwa

          • >>>The US has had a boom and bust cycle of every 20 years until the great depression.

            And after. The Depression ended sometime around 1951-52, and then we had a boom that lasted twenty years until the 1970s bust... then we had another boom starting in 1981 that lasted until 1999 which is another twenty plus-or-minus a few years. You miscategorize the situation if you think the cycle stopped.

            As for the rest of your post, it's confusing what point you were trying to make, but you appear to be under

        • by vertinox (846076)

          A true free market would not have a Reserve Bank setting interest rates, but instead have interest rates that are set by each independent bank, and these rates would move up-and-down with supply-and-demand.

          Historically that has always resulted in bank failures and bank runs and the loss of the savings of many thrifty people.

          Without some regulation, either through malice or incompetence, a bank is going to screw its customers out of their money because someone thought they could take a risk they could not (l

      • by Virtucon (127420)

        So what you're implying is that if I make an investment to provide services to you I shouldn't have domain over the Ts&Cs? If that's the case then I won't make the investment and let the government build out that infrastructure.

        If I see a market that I can provide value to and make a profit then I'll invest in that market. Whether that's Internet Services or Widgets. If there's no possibility for profit or fear for over-regulation and minimalization of my investment then I can find other alternatives

        • by tsm_sf (545316)
          So what you're implying is that if I make an investment to provide services to you I shouldn't have domain over the Ts&Cs? If that's the case then I won't make the investment and let the government build out that infrastructure.

          You're forgetting the billions given to you on the agreement that you'd build out the infrastructure in the first place. Conveniently forgetting.

          Apparently it's socialism only when money flows to someone who isn't you.
    • What you say is true, but there is an overall flaw in this slashdot topic.

      There is a big difference between a 'threat to net neutrality' and an approach to dealing with 'graduated response' to ILLEGAL ACTIVITIES.

      Net Neutrality doesn't mean its ok to pirate software and music - it means that you will have open access to information. This is akin to freedom, wherein you can own knives, guns, ropes, and poisons, but you are still responsible for legal acts you might do with them. It isn't a loss of freedom

    • by MrMr (219533)
      Free Markets do eventually work their way around to providing the services people want for the price they're willing to pay.
      Yes and in the intervening centuries the people are stuck with state-sanctioned monopolies.
      Good thing we don't live now.
  • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:17PM (#27651677)

    Send a clear message that this nonsense will not be tolerated... to help make an intelligent decision when voting in European elections, see:

    http://www.laquadrature.net/en [laquadrature.net] [laquadrature.net]

    Check out the Political memory resource:
    http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Political_Memory [laquadrature.net] [laquadrature.net]

    especially the "List of recorded votes" section to see who voted for what - before you reward them with your vote for them.

    Also of interest, the Telecoms Package section: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/Telecoms_Package [laquadrature.net] [laquadrature.net]

    • by FriendlyLurker (50431) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:34PM (#27651963)

      Bad form to reply to own post, but I just saw this related news item at http://www.laquadrature.net/en [laquadrature.net]

      URGENT: Two days to help Catherine Trautmann protect EU citizens.
      Paris, April 20th 2009 - The Council of the EU is strongly pushing Catherine Trautmann - rapporteur of the main directives of the "Telecoms Package" - to accept a useless, neutralized version[1] of amendment 138. This amendment, opposing to "graduated response - or "three strikes" â" schemes, has been overwhelmingly adopted by the European Parliament in its first reading on September 2008, and is crucial for safeguarding EU citizens' rights and freedoms. La Quadrature du Net calls European citizens to urge their MEPs seating in ITRE committee to support the rapporteur by refusing any compromise neutralizing amendment 138 (now renumbered 46) on April 21st vote.

      [1] The Council wants to make it a merely indicative recital instead of an article that Member States must transpose into their law

      • by shawb (16347)

        Bad form to reply to own post

        Meh... only bad form on bulletin boards which have an "edit post" feature. Slashdot decided not to allow editing of posts (most likely because it would be too powerful of a tool for trolls) so it's all good here.

      • Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE) committee Members contact details (Including emails), by country: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/MEPs_ITRE [laquadrature.net]
        Two clicks and a quick email/phone call to "urge [your] MEPs seating in ITRE committee to support the rapporteur by refusing any compromise neutralizing amendment 138 (now renumbered 46) on April 21st vote.".

        (Thanks to Shawb for pointing out it is not bad form to reply to own post :)

    • >>>Check out the Political memory resource:

      Cool. We need a website like this for the United States' Congress and the 50 State Legislatures.

  • Stop it. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by DAldredge (2353) <SlashdotEmail@GMail.Com> on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:27PM (#27651853) Journal
    Stop trying to equate network neutrality with stealing. Punishing those who keep stealing/pirating content doesn't have anything to do with NN.
    • It does to the criminals. If all their b/w gets filtered out for legitimate business, where would they turn to? Dialup? Not likely. SSL or Tunneling probably.
      • Don't do crime, don't get your freedoms limited. Life isn't as hard as you're pretending it is. Follow the law or change the law, but in the end it is important to know that a repercussion for a convicted criminal is not the same as limiting freedoms.

        What do you suppose we do with criminals? Nothing?

        • When the mere act of sharing a NSL Letter with my lawyer is treated as a crime, when the mere act of having a FlashMob party with my friends at the local Pub becomes a crime, when the mere act of refusing to pay taxes on blank CD/DVDs AND paying a fine to local RIAA for downloading music to my PC becomes a crime, when the congressmen and MPs who were elected by me refuse to listen to me and instead obey the diktats of Moneybags and pass an act that makes it a crime to high-five my friends at school, when t

          • You pretend to care enough, but you don't. If you did you would do something about this supposed corrupt activity and revolt. Instead you'll sit back and be pacified by all the good things your government does for you and wait for someone else to throw the first stone.

            Get real, get reality. Do crime, you get convicted and deal with the consequences. If you want the laws changed, quit crying to me about it and actually go do something about it. You're the guy upset about the way laws incriminate --- its

    • Tell you what- I'll think about it if you stop trying to equate copyright infringement with theft.
    • I just posted about this. Great job at getting your post in early so it gets seen.

      There is no relationship between eventually banning a criminal from the internet, and limiting access to information.

      This whole damn slashdot posting needs to be modded OFFTOPIC since the subject matter and the headline have nothing in common.

      I'll be damn pleased if criminals on the internet eventually get their access cut off. We do these same things in the rest of the civilized world. It doesn't mean your freedoms are bei

      • Enoguh with your tired propaganda. Sharing is not a crime. Destroying the internet for the benefit of coke snorting, whore fucking, disgusting music industry execs ought to be one.

        • Enoguh with your tired propaganda. Sharing is not a crime. Destroying the internet for the benefit of coke snorting, whore fucking, disgusting music industry execs ought to be one.

          Cry a river. It won't change shit about THE LAW. And until you man up and do something to actually change those laws, you'll get charged and convicted for what your opinion disagrees with. NAMBLA has an opinion too, but I hope they won't start making love to young boys until they get our country to accept their ideas.

          I'm not talking propaganda, I'm talking about reality. I am totally happy with banning people who do crime on the internet from using the internet over a 3-strikes 'graduated response'. If

          • We're changing the law right here. That's what we are doing with the fine people at LQDN. In any case, I'm more than capable of doing whatever it takes not to be disconnected, me and all my high end pirated software.

            Yes, I admit it, all my software is PIRATED. I downloaded it for free on the internet! Sue me! I can even give you the name and addresses of the copyright holders, even better, I'm going to GIVE YOU copies of ALL my software. For free. Oh my god I'm such a thief. Surely the makers of that softwa

            • I'm not hiding from anything. Lol.

              Be a good boy and man up to your words. ACTUALLY do something instead of sitting on slashdot pretending like your complaints will make a difference.

              My guess is that you are actually too satisfied by the other good things your government provides and that you would rather enjoy that stability than do what is necessary to achieve your proposed goals. I'll be watching the news, waiting for ninnies like you to man up and do something about all this hustling and bustling you

              • I've been calling MEPs, meeting with my MP, writing a tech memo at the request of another, doing research and doing writeups for our advocacy group's wiki, fixing up websites and so on and so forth.

                WTF are you rambling about?

                • And when you get ignored, then what? You'll go back under the bed and write pissy poems and get all worked up telling your girlfriend about how upset you are... lol.

                  All this discussion, beside the fact that banning criminals != threatening net neutrality. It means criminals get banned. I sure hope child porn and spammers get banned from access. I hope malware producers and black-hat hackers bet banned.

                  • My MP reused one of my argument in the assembly, another, and he, along with the few main opponents, thanked us for our contributions; in fact they all met [I couldn't attend due to a last minute obligation] with the few MPs in a bar after the surprise vote of the 9th

                    I sure hope child porn and spammers get banned from access.

                    And I want cancer to be cured. I'm going to get a law passed to make cancer illegal. It's gonna be as useful as what you're defending here.

                    • I guess we'll see if you actually get ignored or not based on the outcome.

                      Its a shame that you've so recklessly implied laws do not have meaningful outcomes. I'm sure the child pornographers and spammers that have already been busted, to-date, would disagree with your blatant misrepresentation of reality. If you felt that laws do not actually serve such purpose, what are you so upset about? Aren't you, according to your implication, immune to recourse for your actions?

                      Unfortunately for your silly idea ab

        • by DAldredge (2353)
          You can share your property and the property of others who allow it all you want can you not? You problem is that you want to be able to share that which isn't yours in the first place.
  • by maillemaker (924053) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:33PM (#27651943)

    It's quite clear to me that the end of the Golden Age of the Internet is drawing near.

    The internet has finally drawn the attention of the huge money and power brokers of the world. These people are going to make sure that the Internet serves their ends as much as possible.

    Oh, there will be the few geeks who know how to set up a proxy to secure a tiny bit of anonymity until one of the Big Fish get wind of you and get interested in tracking you down, but for the most part, all connections are going to be monitored. They are going to know who's on each end of every communication channel, and they are going to know what is being communicated, and to a large extent, they will control it. Whether it's priority transmission speeds, bandwidth capping, or outright censoring, there's too much money at stake on the Internet now to leave the playing field "neutral".

    • Oh do piss off. All of this is only being brought in because a minority of internet users are incapable of controlling themselves. Fuck em. When you've 10% of an ISP's users using 90% of the traffic, mostly for illegal purposes, then something needs to be done for the benefit of the 90% who are able to exercise restraint.
      • Correct. Like "per gigabyte" pricing. It seems entirely logical that grandma should only pay $7 a month for her minimal usage, while I pay $100 a month for my heavy downloading. I'm using more electricity therefore I'm costing the ISP more money. It's only natural that I should pay more overall.

        Of course, if I did have to pay $100 that means I'd download less, probably moving to smaller files like 150 megabytes instead of the 1.5 gig HD videos. So it's a reinforcing paradigm where higher prices encoura

        • by Jestrzcap (46989)

          They'd have more to lose in a system like this. Their costs for operation remain pretty much the same from month to month (just maintaining a network that already exists), but they could lose a whole lot of money just because people didn't feel like downloading the latest youtube sensation. Not only that but peak times would pretty much remain peak times and any "bottlenecks" would still get bumped into. They'll continue to set policies that affect the top 10% (many of whom are taking advantage of the sy

          • >>>They'd have more to lose in a system like this.

            Then what are we worried about? Even if they pass the per-gigabyte pricing, they'll quickly self-correct and go back to the old flat-rate model, rather than lose money.

            >>>Bandwidth Ratio's are much less of a threat to "Net Neutrality"

            I don't know what that is.

        • by cdrguru (88047)

          Usage is not the only cost to an ISP. If you download .001GB per month but spend four hours every month on the phone with their tech support the usage is minimal compared to the support cost.

          I'm sure there are plenty more examples of other costs. No way can they charge just by GB - at least not anywhere near their actual GB cost.

          • That's true, but most companies don't charge for tech support. If for example I started calling my electric company for hours on end, and asking for assistance converting my bulbs to compact fluorescent lights, they would not assess me a fee. They'd keep charging me the same 8 cents per kilowatthour they've always charged, and consider the tech support as part of their "cost of doing business". i.e. Good customer service.

    • People have predicted the end of net neutrality and the internet for years. It still hasn't happened, and it's because of places like Slashdot.

    • by Jestrzcap (46989) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:58PM (#27652345)

      It's less clear to me that this is the case.

      You think Google is going to put up long with some idiot provider charging customers an extra $20/month to allow access to *.google.com/*
      You think Google is going to share it's ad revenue with consumer ISPs? I'm just using Google as an example, but multiply this by all the big businesses out there.

      Time Warner, Comcast, Charter, AT&T, Verizon, etc are all competing with each other using different technologies. Within the next 5 years or so you'll have fiber-class wireless connections available to your homes.

      You really think every single player is going to be able to pull their head out of their butts long enough to coordinate something as complex as tiered internet?

      Competition is going to keep net neutrality a reality until the basics fundamentally change. You may have the odd player who tries to nickel and dime their customers by over regulating their networks, but it'll be the minority, and there will be options.

    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      Oh no, the big bad moneymen are here to they'll rape and pillage our Internet and there's nothing we can do to stop them. The end is near! Boo-hoo. If you don't like the way the wind is blowing, stand up and fight against it you fucking pussy. You're not helpless so stop acting like you are.

      That probably sounds like a troll but I'm so sick of hearing the defeatist attitude of people who could actually prevent these things if they stopped whining about them for five minutes and stood up for their supposed be

    • Split the Internet into many littler Internets! Start over!!
    • by vertinox (846076)

      Oh, there will be the few geeks who know how to set up a proxy to secure a tiny bit of anonymity until one of the Big Fish get wind of you and get interested in tracking you down, but for the most part, all connections are going to be monitored. They are going to know who's on each end of every communication channel, and they are going to know what is being communicated, and to a large extent, they will control it.

      I suspect if it becomes a large problem for a large set of people, then people will start encr

  • by d474 (695126) on Monday April 20, 2009 @04:40PM (#27652071)
    ...basically DRM the entire internet? That's where they are eventually trying to get to, and we all know it.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      The answer is obvious. They don't want us getting stuff for free. They want us to borrow even more money, go even deeper into debt, and buy more DVDs, CDs, and books. It's all about the $$$.

  • Bandwidth Exceeded (Score:2, Informative)

    by Jonas Buyl (1425319)
    Seems the website couldn't handle Slashdot but remember it's still available in Google's Cache @ http://shuurl.com/F4451 [shuurl.com]
  • Contact information for the MEPs on the ITRE committee [laquadrature.net] (along with their original votes on the first reading of the amendment).

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I told my wife about this while lying on the couch this evening...she got so pissed off that she emailed all 100 Euro MP's in for Germany in 3 hours...nice, now if she was only this keen in bed ;(

    • She most really love her ipod.

    • by DynaSoar (714234)

      I told my wife about this while lying on the couch this evening...she got so pissed off that she emailed all 100 Euro MP's in for Germany in 3 hours...nice, now if she was only this keen in bed ;(

      You're lucky she's not. If she could take on 100 Euro MPs in 3 hours in bed, she'd *kill* you.

  • by Turzyx (1462339) on Monday April 20, 2009 @05:30PM (#27652835)
    Most of the people I know are not familiar with the intricacies of today's technology. If they think for one minute they are being monitored, watched and spied upon by anyone, let alone government and telecoms companies, they'll stop internet shopping, social networking and wikipedia surfing immediately (which lets face it, is all most normal people use a PC for nowadays anyway). Just look at how much people kicked off over Facebook wanting to protect people's email inbox after the sender deleted their copy...

    If this even get close to being passed, mainstream media will have a field day, especially given that most UK tabloids despise Europe in its entirety already.

    Perhaps this is a ploy to stimulate high street sales amirite?
  • by Xest (935314)

    I live in the UK and it's well beyond threat. Carter (and I wont refer to him by his full title of Lord because he's undeserving of it) has already given the green light for companies to do whatever the fuck they want and totally disregard net neutrality despite OFCOM previously announcing that they would protect it.

    I guess it depends where you are in Europe, but certainly in the UK the Labour government has already outright written off the idea of net neutrality.

    A lot of ISPs here have been using DPI to ma

Money will say more in one moment than the most eloquent lover can in years.

Working...