The net neutrality debate has expanded to encompass the need...

said Thursday in a report (http://xrl.us/bnqs3o) to the Parliament and government on the technical and economic issues fueling the discussion. In September 2010, ARCEP published 10 proposals aimed at defining a sustainable, neutral and high-quality equilibrium to ensure the Internet’s functioning, it said. That launched a period of work on and monitoring of Internet players’ practices on transparency, quality of service (QoS), interconnection and traffic management, it said. A dynamic and competitive market, capable of keeping ISPs disciplined, is essential to the existence of quality Internet access products that respect net neutrality, it said. The transparency of offers to consumers still needs improvement, it said. ARCEP and other public authorities responsible for e-communications and consumer affairs are leading a working group on the issue that should produce results in early 2013, it said. But competition and transparency aren’t enough to guarantee net neutrality, so the regulator will approve a decision by year’s end that specifies QoS indicators for fixed networks, which will be measured and made public as they are for mobile networks. ARCEP may also set minimum QoS requirements if needed, it said. It has also launched an inventory of traffic management practices such as throttling, blocking or priority queues, it said. These are on the decrease, particularly on mobile networks, but some practices still breach its 2010 criteria, it said. It urged operators to stop blocking VoIP and peer-to-peer services, warning that if the market fails to act, ARCEP has the legislative authority to intervene. The interconnection business model is gradually evolving and can give rise to conflicts, but monitoring, not regulation, is what’s needed at this point, it said. ARCEP is also keeping tabs on the specific role of content and application providers and device manufacturers in preserving net neutrality. It’s taking a “progressive” approach to net neutrality, based first on immediate preventive actions aimed at promoting competition and transparency, and then on enabling Internet companies, operators, and content and app providers to appeal to the regulator for dispute resolution in traffic management and interconnection disputes, it said. The third leg of ARCEP’s approach is to regulate if general or discriminatory QoS degradation is found, it said. It’s up to Parliament to decide what to do about net neutrality, ARCEP said. But if lawmakers decide to turn guiding principles into law, they should avoid “overly-detailed provisions that could prove difficult, if not impossible, to implement in a sector that is in a constant state of technological and economic flux."