Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[JGO]

See section 7 of this := 
 
http://ec.europa.eu/commission_2010-2014/mimica/stories/2013/09/11092013_en.htm

It looks like an ill thought out bit of "Help" to me, any comments ?

[roseway]

Fine words, but a lot of overblown and impractical stuff. Section 2 is one which hit me immediately - how on earth can an ISP guarantee actual upload and download speeds, when they depend on so many factors outside the ISP's control?

[Berrick]

Interesting;

Section one

Operators are no longer allowed to block, slow down, degrade or discriminate against specific, content, applications or services, except in very limited, concretely defined cases

So I guess Pirate Bay nor Porn can't be blocked.

Section Two as Roseway pointed out

how on earth can an ISP guarantee actual upload and download speeds, when they depend on so many factors outside the ISP's control

will be interesting. I do hope this will mean the end of artificially high "upto" quotes from ISP's. They have a pretty good idea of what your actual speeds will be.

Section Seven the email bit shouldn't present to many problems but the rest 

[JGO]

" I do hope this will mean the end of artificially high "upto" quotes from ISP's. They have a pretty good idea of what your actual speeds will be."

My sync rate is 3 time the quoted rate, and fairly stable, mainly because I didn't just accept what BT served up. Also I've heard of the rate dropping 90% due to a Plasma TV - is that the ISP's fault ?

"Section Seven the email bit shouldn't present to many problems."
 Recently there was a suicide of a 16 year old due to Internet Bullying. If applied as stated section 7 would prevent changing ISP from blocking that.  At the very least it needs a shorter time option, including zero, like Postal Redirection.

I note the PM recently decided blocking Porn was the school's problem, not ISPs, had he seen a draft ?

The more I think about it the more it reminds me of Nevil Shute's description of the R101 fiasco - a civil servant's daydream. 
 

 

[kitz]

2. Is just plain silly and I can imagine it will cause a lot of confusion (and complaints).   
By using the term "data speed" it would appear they are saying that ISPs should be open about throughput speeds during peak hours to clearly identify any traffic shaping or throttling performed by the ISP.   Even with data throughput speed there are still an awful lot of conditions that are outside of the ISPs control. 
What about natural congestion that can occur practically anywhere between point A&B.
Too many will assume that 'actual data speed' means something else...  the average man in the street doesnt understand the difference between connection and throughput speed as it is.

1. Is interesting and could open up a whole can of worms.   On one hand you have groups saying that google and ISPs should be responsible for blocking content to protect our children against paedophiles.    Then theres all the pirate sites that because of previous legislations the ISPs have had to block.  This blows everything wide open again.  More interesting is the fact it implies ISPs wont be allowed to prioritise traffic and slow down certain types of traffic..  could this be the end of the Ellacoyas?

Some things dont seem to have been thought out too carefully and its just more bureaucracy that is impractical for the SPs.

6. Im glad about that.  Something that Ive never agreed with is automatic extension which gave the consumer only a short time frame before they could find themselves locked in for another 12months, even if theyve already served their contract time.

[Berrick]

With regards to Point One

Then there's all the pirate sites that because of previous legislations the ISPs have had to block

This point alone serves to prove how futile such legislations (ISP YOU WILL block) is. If we take just this one site as an example, within hours of the domain name being blocked access to the site was available using a different Domain name. This site is still very active and very accessible.

IMHO, and at the risk of getting flamed, the same point should serve to reinforce the message that it is not the sole responsibility of ISP's or search engines to "protect" from nasty content, its a community thing, with most of the responsibility on the parents.

On a separate note I'm guessing this is a highlighted list and I am wondering if there will be anything in it to stop ISP using barefruits to mis direct search traffic?
 

[JGO]

" the same point should serve to reinforce the message that it is not the sole responsibility of ISP's or search engines to "protect" from nasty content, its a community thing, with most of the responsibility on the parents."

Agreed 100%
-

[kitz]

Absolutely

[oldfogy]

1. Open internet. For the first time net neutrality is guaranteed through EU level legislation. Operators are no longer allowed to block,
So will this mean that VM will no longer be able to block certain sites such as PB and h33t.com of which apparently was a court directive bought about by the movie industry.

Although as said earlier, not that it matters as I just use another tool (TOR) and although fairly slow especially at opening it does the job and allows me to download personal torrents which the files are then actually downloaded with my normal ISP (VM)

[Berrick]

I guess that is what this get out of jail card is all about;

except in very limited, concretely defined cases