EU Bodies, French Government Crafting Net Neutrality Positions
Net neutrality is becoming as much a political, economic and social issue as a technical one in Europe, a French government official said Tuesday at a summit on net neutrality held by her country’s telecom regulator, ARCEP. France started a public consultation on the topic last week, the European Council of Ministers will meet soon for an informal discussion, and the European Parliament is developing a position, said Nathalie Kosciusko-Morizet, the French secretary of state for strategic analysis and the development of the digital economy. The European Commission will begin its own public inquiry soon, said Digital Agenda Commissioner Neelie Kroes.
Sign up for a free preview to unlock the rest of this article
Timely, relevant coverage of court proceedings and agency rulings involving tariffs, classification, valuation, origin and antidumping and countervailing duties. Each day, Trade Law Daily subscribers receive a daily headline email, in-depth PDF edition and access to all relevant documents via our trade law source document library and website.
The state’s role is as an astute investor, supporter and guide for structuring a future industry, Kosciusko-Morizet said. It should aid the development of new services and content to ensure that users have access to all lawful services online, she said. Service, applications and content providers need access to all users to continue innovating, she said.
Technical, political and economic matters don’t entirely frame the net neutrality debate, Kosciusko-Morizet said. No one wants one or a few players to take control of a strategic public asset, she said. But operators must be able to manage peaks, and traffic management shouldn’t be a taboo subject, she said. The practice should be tackled head-on to ensure that it meets societal goals and isn’t abused, she said.
Kosciusko-Morizet asked those involved not to fall victim to the dual illusions that the Internet’s structure makes regulation impossible and that technology can solve everything. The first idea leads to a naive argument that government intervention is illegitimate, the second to the concept that technology is infallible in cyberspace, she said. But technology moves faster than law, and solutions soon become ineffective as people work around them, she said.
The EU has rules to deal with net neutrality issues, Kroes said. Revised telecom regulations foresee quality-of-service requirements to ensure that traffic management and prioritization don’t degrade networks, she said. The EC is also developing a strategy to increase investment in next-generation networks that will enable new services, Kroes said. The rules also require that consumers understand what services they're getting and that they be told about traffic management practices, so they can make informed choices about providers, she said.
The EC is monitoring the effects of market and technology developments on net neutrality and will report to the Council and Parliament this year, Kroes said. She announced a consultation to begin before summer. Kroes said she'll be bound by several principles when deciding whether to propose legislation: Freedom of expression is “fundamental,” transparency is “non-negotiable,” investment in efficient and open networks is essential, and there must be fair competition. She said she won’t assume that one side or the other of the argument should prevail or that further EC intervention is needed. There are many ways to handle traffic but creating new rules and crowding streets with signs doesn’t automatically make it flow more easily, she said.
Net neutrality is a principle, not dogma, said ARCEP Commissioner Nicolas Currien. It encompasses traffic management, intellectual property protection, privacy, network security and other issues which all moderate regulatory ambitions for neutrality, he said. Authorities should try for “quasi-neutrality” -- the most neutrality possible in light of the other considerations, he said.
Some speakers said better coordination is needed among authorities with jurisdiction over the issues involved in net neutrality, such as consumer protection, privacy and competition. France has five such bodies, creating risks of competition and inconsistency among regulators, said Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, vice chairman of privacy watchdog CNIL.
There’s consensus in the U.S. that net neutrality be preserved as much as possible, but how to do that is controversial, said FTC Deputy Director Howard Shelanski. His agency, the FCC and the Department of Justice all have some jurisdiction over the issues and could step in case by case when there’s evidence of discrimination, he said. But the Comcast decision has thrown the situation into turmoil, and it’s unclear who will deal with net neutrality issues and how, he said.
A general competition authority such as the FTC or DOJ could handle complaints, Shelanski said. Or the FCC could regulate the Internet under its common-carrier authority -- risking all jurisdiction if reclassification is rejected in court, he said. Or, because of a U.S. Supreme Court ruling, the FTC and DOJ could lose their jurisdiction over consumer issues, placing the matter squarely with the FCC, Shelanski said. A jurisdiction-sharing agreement among the agencies could be the answer, he said. “Stay tuned."
The Comcast decision probably won’t go to the Supreme Court, because the company wants the government to approve its merger with Universal and will promise anything to keep the FCC happy, said Columbia University Professor Eli Noam. Nor is Congress likely to legislate on net neutrality, he said. One way to deal with the situation would be to reclassify broadband as a telecom service, and another would be for the FCC to adopt rules, an action made more iffy by the Comcast decision, he said. The uncertainty will probably force the Googles and Verizons of the world to work something out regarding technical issues, he said.