IPtegrity.com  is a the PhD website of Autralian, Monica Horten (right) studying at  the University of Westminster. She is with the Communications and Media Research Institute (CAMRI) in the School of Media, Arts and Design. Her doctoral research is on 'The Political Battle for Online Content in the European Union' or analysing the Telecoms Package Second Reading in the European Parliament.

"In very simple terms, it is about  the content - news,  pictures, TV programmes, movies,  music - that we get over the Internet - or indeed, that we put there ourselves.  And it looks at how companies and governments are arguing over what  we are - and are not - allowed to do with it."

The drift of things to date from the site's heading is ominous:
Fight for the Net in EU taken up by the left:
Malcolm Harbour “frustrated” by users rights:
Telecoms Package Internet sell-out now agreed:
Internet rights sold down the line by European Parliament:
New EU Council threat to Internet users rights:
Harbour's Amendment 166 re-write reverses users rights:
Amendment 138 saved - but not the Internet:
Amendment 138 scrapped in EU Telecoms Package deal.

Even major US telecoms players in early April joined the arguement:
Microsoft, Google, Intel and Skype have called on the EU to halt the damaging Telecoms Package proposals which would limit Internet access and legally permit operators to block applications such as Skype. They want the EU to write in to the new law  a guarantee of open access to all content, services and applications. Reuters

Background:
The Telecoms Package is  the review of European telecommunications framework legislation. Over 300 amendments have been tabled to two main directives - the (so-called) Better Regulation directive which incorporates the Framework, Access and Authoritisation directives - and the (so-called) Citizens Rights directive - which incorporates the Universal Services directive and the e-Privacy directive.

With so many amendments, covering such a broad scope of legislation, it is almost impossible for anyone, even specialists, to have a grasp of their meaning in real life. Let alone members of the European Parliament, for whom this is just one of many subjects, and where they are reliant on their assistants, who in turn rely on lobbyists. This is especially true since the real meaning of many amendments depends on how they are inter-linked with others. Following the chain of links, to figure out, is a complex task. However, when one does so, some serious consequences are being revealed.

The over-arching  problem is that this is policy being made by changes in the law. The scope of the telecoms framework is being altered by often subtle wording changes in the amendments. The changing scope is de facto establishing policy, and by-passing the correct policy processes which have been established in the European Union.

To give an idea of the scale of the problem, one telecoms lawyer complained  that he had 250 pages of documents to read through, in order to analyse the Package and do the job properly.

The Council compromise documents for the two main bundles in the Package - Better Regulation and Citizens rights - plus the Common position for reference.   For those of us who have been with the Telecoms Package  since the beginning, trawling through this amount of documentation is strangely normal. It also puts into perspective the enormity of the job for the European Parliament, and begs the question whether MEPs can really do it justice in the time allowed.

Amendment 138
The original amendment  protects the right to freedom of expression on the Internet, by saying that no restriction - that is sanction - may be applied without a court ruling. It  gained political import because it makes a statement against the French government's plans for 3-strikes measures.   It is addressed to national regulators, meaning that Ofcom, or its equivalent in other EU countries, would be required to oversee that it was obeyed.

The new amendment is weak. If anything, it seems to protect the position of governments, which want to introduce graduated response measures or other measures such as the UK wants to do which could include: protocol blocking, using network technology to slow the speed of a user's connection or suspend the service. 

Members of the European Parliament are negotiating away users rights to the Internet, in a bid to come to a quick political agreement on the Telecoms Package. It is happening in discussions known as trialogues, which brings together Parliament, Council and Commission, to try to agree a resolution on politically sensitive or technically difficult aspects of the Telecoms Package.

An agreement  between the three institutions would wrap up the Package in the Second Reading (May 6). Political deals are being done which remove users rights to distribute Internet content,  impose conditions on Internet access and which could permit broadband providers to limit access to a specified list of websites or a premium paid-for Internet. Net neutrality, and millions of Internet businesses, are under threat if this goes ahead.

Two major players:
Catherine Trautman (rapporteur on the Framework, Access and Authorisation directives) is understood to want  a deal that keeps ‘lawful content'  in the Package, in return for agreeing to a text from the council on ‘no distortion of competition'. The Council wants a ‘compromise' which removes users rights to distribute information.

Malcolm Harbour (rapporteur on the Universal Services directive)  is believed to be  tackling the sensitive Internet issues by downgrading them to a  ‘technical'  status, so that they will get through without discussion, and what the Council wants, goes. The current favoured wording appears to be "the conditions limiting access to and/or use of services and applications,"

Internet sellout