DO WE NEED NET NEUTRALITY
REGULATION?
Marina Brkljačić,
CROATIAN REGULATORY
AUTHORITY FOR NETWORK INDUSTRIES
(HAKOM)
September 29th, 2014
1.
Introduction & Content
Existing provisions on the net neutrality in national legal
systems
Provisions on the net neutrality in the TSM proposal
EU Parliament’s amendments
BEREC position
HAKOM © 2014
2
29.9.2014
2. Existing provisions on the net neutrality in national legal
systems
The new European regulatory framework in 2009 - Member
States have the freedom to implement (or not) the provisions of
network neutrality in their jurisdictions- Article 7.4 a TA
The first European country with the network neutrality provisions
in their legislation is Netherlands, followed by Slovenia- Article
203
Provisions mainly relate to ban operators to block or slow down
Internet traffic, except when it is in the interest of end-users or
when imposed by court/law order
Belgium has proposed a draft law
HAKOM © 2014
3
29.9.2014
Reasons:
- In April 2011, the Netherlands telecommunications company KPN has
announced that it will block services (such as VoIP and messaging over
the Internet) unless the end users pay an extra fee
- Slovenia: legislator (ministry) wanted to advance to regulate network
neutrality, there was not any problem in the market
Conclusion: the introduction of the provision of network neutrality
legislation should be realized only when it is necessary, due to changes
in the market or due to problems in the electronic communications
market
HAKOM © 2014
4
29.9.2014.
Provisions on the net neutrality in the TSM proposal
Article 23.
Freedom to provide and avail of open Internet access and rasonable
traffic management
: end users
● freedom to access and distribute information and content, run
applications and use of their choices services via IAS
● freedom to agree the provision of specialized services with
enhanced quality of service (shall not impair general quality of
IAS)
● reasonable traffic management measures (4)
HAKOM © 2014
5
29.9.2014
Provisions on the net neutrality in the TSM proposal
● reasonable traffic management measures shall be transparent,
non discriminatory, proportionate and necessary to:
1. implement a legislative provision/court order or prevent serious
crimes
2. preserve the integrity and security of the network
3. prevent the transmission of unsolicited communication
4. minimise the effects of network congestion.
HAKOM © 2014
6
29.9.2014
Provisions on the net neutrality in the TSM proposal
Article 24. Safeguards for quality of service
● NRAs shall monitor the effects of specialised services on cultural diversity and
innovation
● NRAs shall have the power to impose minimum quality of service requirements
on providers (to prevent the general impairment of quality of service for IAS)
● NRAs provide Commision and BEREC proposed course of action
● The Commision may adopt implementing act.
HAKOM © 2014
7
29.9.2014
EU Parliament’s amendments
● Specialised services shall only be offered if the network capacity
is sufficient to provide them in addition to IAS
● Traffic management measures shall not be maintained longer
than necessary (less reasonable reasons)
● BEREC- lay down general quidelines (after consulting stakeholders
and Commision) for the implementation of the obligations of NRA
for safeguards for quality of service
+ Article 24 a (new)
Commision and BEREC= review the functioning of the provisions on
specialised services
HAKOM © 2014
8
29.9.2014
BEREC position
● Reasonable traffic management measures:
New paragraph: if it is necessary to comply
request/consent of the end user…..
with
● BEREC proposed to add obligations on ISPsto
informations to NRAs regarding traffic managment
explicit
provide
● BEREC quidelines instead of Commision impelementing act
HAKOM © 2014
9
29.9.2014
BEREC conclusion
TSM: too rigid and incomplete system
New legislative tools:
Should be based on the identification of specific regulatory
problems and development of tailored solutions to them…
HAKOM © 2014
10
29.9.2014
Thank you for your attention
HAKOM © 2014
11
29.9.2014.