Im Herbst 2015 hat das EU-Parlament die europäische Netzneutralitätsverordnung verabschiedet, seit einigen Tagen ist nun der Entwurf der technischen Richtlinien zur Netzneutrlitätsverordnung von BEREC (dem Verband der Telekommunikationsregulierer der EU-Länder) veröffentlich worden. Bis zum 18. Juli 14:00 können interessierte an der Konsultation teilnehmen, Beiträge dazu sind per Mail an NN-Consultation@berec.europa.eu zu richten.
Meinen Konsultationsbeitrag habe ich eben abgeschickt:
Dear Ladies and Gentleman, First of all I would like to thank you for your work on the guidelines on implementation of net-neutrality rules according to regulation 2015/2120 and the chance to comment on the draft. In 1997 I had my first contact with the internet via a local computer and internet club, which helped citizens getting access to the internet and trains them on how to use services and applications. During my time as a university student, the internet was an important source for lectures and research information. Now working as a software developer, internet access without blocked or throttled services and applications is still crucial for me. Concerning "specialised services" and zero-rating contracts, I prefer a strict approach, requiring technical rather than economical necessities for QoS. Allowing ISPs to implement any kind of discrimination between CAPs would negatively influence the development of new internet based services or applications. In addition it would also negatively influence the economical development of smaller ISPs, as their market power (i.e. number of subscribers) is not sufficient to get the same payment for "specialised services" from CAPs as the bigger ISPs. Hence the bigger ISPs will be able to profit from a double sided market - as they already try to do within the IP-interconnection/peering-sector - and maybe lower the end user prices to a level which cannot be offered by smaller ISPs which don't profit from a double sided market. Here are my comments to some of your guideline paragraphs: Regarding IP-interconnection/peering ------------------------------------ As you mentioned in par. 6, IP-interconnection/peering policies can be abused to circumvent the net-neutrality regulation by facilitating insufficient (i.e. recurringly congested) interconnection capacities for normal IAS and only installing sufficient capacities towards certain CAPs. Par. 15 should require ISPs to implement an IP-interconnection/peering policy which provides sufficient capacities and prevents recurring congestion. Par. 56 should emphasize that ISPs should not only provide transparent information about traffic management measures to NRAs but also to end-users. These information should also include details on overbooking factors of networks and IP-interconnection/peering capacities. Par. 112 & 113 should mention that not only sufficient network capacity is required to provide a "specialised service" but also sufficient IP-interconnection/peering capacity. Par. 158ff. should require the certified monitoring systems to also be designed to monitor performance issues caused by insufficient IP-interconnection/peering. This could help NRAs to detect IP-interconnection/peering policies aimed at circumventing the regulation. Par. 164 should also include monitoring of IP-interconnection/peering capacities in the supervision duties of the NRAs. Regarding zero-rating --------------------- Par. 36 - 40 should also consider commercial practices influencing end users' exercise of rights (instead of directly limiting them) like zero-rating of specific applications to be an infringement of the regulation. Such practices force end users to prefer a specific application (and hence CAPs) which discriminates other CAPs providing applications of the same category and might even discourage new CAPs from entering the market as they could not compete with existing CAPs due to existing zero-rated applications. ISPs offering contracts with zero-rated applications (or classes of applications) should be required to offer a comparable service without zero-rating at a reasonable price (i.e. without prohibitive high pricing). Par. 45 should be clarified: The second point is in contrast to allowing certain types of zero-rating: Zero-rating always causes some applications or classes of applications (those that are not zero-rated) to have a higher effective data price as other(s). E.g. if there is a mobile tariff plan at 10 EUR including 1 GB of data volume and zero-rating a specific music streaming application, then the price of 1 MB of the specific music streaming application is 0 while any other data is at 0,01 EUR per MB (and therefore at a higher price). So there is a strong disincentive to use any other music streaming service than the zero-rated one. Regarding "specialised services" -------------------------------- Par. 101 should not allow "specialised services" to circumvent regulation on zero-rating. E.g. the combination of a regular IAS with limited data volume and a "specialised service" for a certain IP-TV service with unlimited data volume should not be allowed as it influences the end user’s decision on which IP-TV service to use. Par. 118 should ensure that the end user's IAS performance shall not be impacted by currently unused "specialised services". Furthermore, it should be added that ISPs offering "specilised services" have to provide a way for end users to configure the priorisation on the dedicated last mile (e.g. to allow an end user to reserve a minimum of 60% of the access speed for the IAS). Regarding terminal equipment ---------------------------- Par. 23 should define the NTP as passive component to prevent ISPs from declaring their preferred routers as NTP and thereby forcing customers to buy or rent certain models. I hope you can take my comments into consideration for a further refinement of the guidelines, as I consider strict net-neutrality rules as crucial for the development of the internet. Kind regards, Daniel Weber