EU Parliament votes to protect "net neutrality"

Status
Not open for further replies.
ComputerMKII said:
Net neutrality would force ISPs not to filter anything.

I would argue that ISPs should be able to filter whatever the fuck they want, but in the current context the effects would be interesting: filtering P2P or censoring websites would be legally impossible.

But I suppose that, for this experts' committee, net neutrality will mean that ISPs can't filter anything unless the government tells them to. All the cons without the pros.

It's a stupid idea and I don't see how preventing people/companies to make voluntary contracts with each other helps freedom in any way.
Click to expand...

If a government filters content, it's bad. If a business filters content, it's good!

One starts with the letter g, the other the letter b!
 
SJRB said:
Thank Christ. Neelie Kroes, you crazy woman. I expected more from you than this insanity.
Click to expand...

I am very happy with this that there using the netherlands net neutrality. And yes that woman is fucking crazy to call it a 'weaker' net neutrality and it would cripple the internet. And the worst part? She didn't like the TPP/SOPA/PIPA but was ok with this. Also she is CDA and that means money.

All i can say is this is good news and cheered when i saw it at work. Oh America i feel bad for you :(
 
TyrantGuardian said:
At least EU does some things right. Once in a blue moon.
Click to expand...
As far as consumer rights, human rights and environmental protection stuff, they do most things right or at least much better than anyone else at least (though, the environmental protection isn't quite enough, they are infinitely better than USA, Canada or China)
 
CyclopsRock said:
I wonder how the roaming changes will work? Will it come out of your normal contract, or pay local non-contract rates? For example, if I have an unlimited 4G contract and go to France, can I just utterly rinse Orange.fr's 4G whilst I'm there? I can't imagine that'll be the case. I wonder!
Click to expand...

That's the plan yes. Your regular rates you have in the UK would apply wherever in the EU you happen to be.
 
Dougald said:
Check it: http://www.votewatch.eu/en/radio-equipment-draft-legislative-resolution-vote-legislative-resolution-ordinary-legislative-proced.html

Nearly all against were UK MEPs, all but one of whom were UKIP

Farage didn't vote it down though... because he never bothered to vote
Click to expand...

You really have to wonder what possible reasons they have to vote against this?
QtIlZL6.png

would be interesting to hear what they have to say for themselves.


It does seem to be mainly (only?) right wing extremists. Le Penn et al.
 
Anyone living in any of their constituencies should take the time to ask them why

I'd write but Farage is my only UKIP MEP and some of the stuff I'd like to say to him would probably get me in trouble
 
lenos16 said:
Hell yeah. I can't wait for the end of roaming costs. It's just so infuriating when you're a German who lives in Austria and can't use your phone when you're going home for the weekend.
Click to expand...

Yeah I mean, you would think there wouldn't be any roaming costs when traveling to another country... I get Europeans like to think they're all the same and one, but you are an amalgam of different countries, with different operators, peoples and governments. If I travel to the US, which is closer than many other cities in Canada, roaming charges occur.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing definitely, but you're going to have a bunch of people, who don't live in the area, or pay telecom fees elsewhere get to use the network there without paying extra. Maybe they'll use it to improve their infrastructure, or maybe they'll increase their regular fees.
 
Madness said:
Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing definitely, but you're going to have a bunch of people, who don't live in the area, or pay telecom fees elsewhere get to use the network there without paying extra. Maybe they'll use it to improve their infrastructure, or maybe they'll increase their regular fees.
Click to expand...

I would assume that that will mostly even out over the different countries, borders and companies. And it's not as if real costs occur due to the traffic. Of course the infrastructure costs money and that is paid for by the local customers.
It seems quite possible that domestic prices will rise, by how much I don’t know but if the companies are in any way honest it cannot be by much and it adds untold advantages for the general population most of which will travel abroad at some point in time.
 
KillerMan91 said:
EU does many things right. Media just doesn't cover those extensively because they can't sell papers with them.
Click to expand...

That's what's sad about perceptions of the EU in the UK. A significant number of people would vote to leave, likely without realising that a lot of valuable human and consumer rights legislation comes from there. The prospect of withdrawal from the ECHR and a substitute British bill of rights written by a Tory government under pressure from UKIP fills me with fear.

The right in this country has a hard-on for American-style let-the-market-decide nonsense that leads to cartels like their telecommunications market and healthcare.
 
NekoFever said:
That's what's sad about perceptions of the EU in the UK. A significant number of people would vote to leave, likely without realising that a lot of valuable human and consumer rights legislation comes from there. The prospect of withdrawal from the ECHR and a substitute British bill of rights written by a Tory government under pressure from UKIP fills me with fear.

The right in this country has a hard-on for American-style let-the-market-decide nonsense that leads to cartels like their telecommunications market and healthcare.
Click to expand...


I'm pretty sure 99% of the hatred of the ECHR comes from the hatred of Travellers, as there was a spate of stories a few years back about them using it to build themselves homes.

Just like most of the hatred of the EU and immigration boils down to Xenophobia at the end of the day. But if you call them out on it they just feign indignation and stamp their feet until you're forced to apologize.
 
Madness said:
Yeah I mean, you would think there wouldn't be any roaming costs when traveling to another country... I get Europeans like to think they're all the same and one, but you are an amalgam of different countries, with different operators, peoples and governments. If I travel to the US, which is closer than many other cities in Canada, roaming charges occur.

Don't get me wrong, it's a good thing definitely, but you're going to have a bunch of people, who don't live in the area, or pay telecom fees elsewhere get to use the network there without paying extra. Maybe they'll use it to improve their infrastructure, or maybe they'll increase their regular fees.
Click to expand...

Sure but we do have a different system in the EU though, free migration of labor and all that. There are tons of people who live in one country and work in another. Case in point I'm living near the Liechtenstein (I know not its not exactly EU) border in Austria and work there as well.
 
NekoFever said:
That's what's sad about perceptions of the EU in the UK. A significant number of people would vote to leave, likely without realising that a lot of valuable human and consumer rights legislation comes from there. The prospect of withdrawal from the ECHR and a substitute British bill of rights written by a Tory government under pressure from UKIP fills me with fear.

The right in this country has a hard-on for American-style let-the-market-decide nonsense that leads to cartels like their telecommunications market and healthcare.
Click to expand...

To be fair, this post is pretty much applicable to most of Europe, even down to political right's market driven wet dreams.
 
Because Euro-Burocrats living in Ivory Towers obviously understand the problems of countries with vastly different cultures, backgrounds, currencies,etc.

What was the definition of a wet dream, again?
 
I was thinking... Wouldnt the end of roaming costs allow people to male more advantageous contracts in other countries if the wanted to?
 
IpsoFacto said:
Because Euro-Burocrats living in Ivory Towers obviously understand the problems of countries with vastly different cultures, backgrounds, currencies,etc.

What was the definition of a wet dream, again?
Click to expand...

Well it'd be silly to expect a bureucrat to know and understand issues in different countries, that's why all the member countries are represented in every level of decision making.
You know that behind every EU policy, there is someone from your own country who agrees with it and has even worked on it.
 
Jasup said:
Well it'd be silly to expect a bureucrat to know and understand issues in different countries, that's why all the member countries are represented in every level of decision making.
You know that behind every EU policy, there is someone from your own country who agrees with it and has even worked on it.
Click to expand...

No that's factually untrue. Angela Merkel personally rules the European Union with an iron fist.

500px-Global_European_Union.svg.png



Europe_under_Nazi_domination.png
Click to expand...

Coincidence? I think not.
 
Dougald said:
Just like most of the hatred of the EU and immigration boils down to Xenophobia at the end of the day. But if you call them out on it they just feign indignation and stamp their feet until you're forced to apologize.
Click to expand...

I read an article the other day about how the word 'racist' has been so effectively demonised that you can't use it to describe anything short of the cartoon villain racism that barely exists any more. In Australia recently, a guy who was found guilty of breaching their racial discrimination act won an apology from a broadcaster because someone called him a racist. Because that term only applies to full-on KKK lynchings or something.

Same with immigration and xenophobia. As long as they're not calling for all immigrants to be rounded up and thrown in camps and some of their best friends are foreign, they're not xenophobic.

Same mental hoops as "I'm not racist but..."
 
QuicheFontaine said:
He probably sees it as draining the lifeblood from a giant monster.

If he takes the money to spend on...whatever it is he likes...the EU has less to spend on their evil legislation making.
Click to expand...

Fags, beer and bunting then.



It's the hypocrisy that pisses me off. He complains about "eurocrats" being paid vast sums to do nothing, but he actively refuses to do the job he's paid to do.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
No that's factually untrue. Angela Merkel personally rules the European Union with an iron fist.

Coincidence? I think not.
Click to expand...

Oh you silly little thing, mixing a state with the federation. It's true Angela controls the most influential state, but she's still ultimately subordinate to president Van Rompuys whims.
 
NekoFever said:
That's what's sad about perceptions of the EU in the UK. A significant number of people would vote to leave, likely without realising that a lot of valuable human and consumer rights legislation comes from there. The prospect of withdrawal from the ECHR and a substitute British bill of rights written by a Tory government under pressure from UKIP fills me with fear.

The right in this country has a hard-on for American-style let-the-market-decide nonsense that leads to cartels like their telecommunications market and healthcare.
Click to expand...

I dunno. There are a lot of people - like meeeee - who are somewhat on the fence about this, because to me, things like human rights, workers rights etc should be decided at a national level. There's no justification for the decision making for those issues to be performed at a more diffused level other than that you happen to prefer the result they come to on a given issue. Generally speaking, I'd rather see democracy localised rather than... whatever the opposite to "localised" is. The more locally decisions are made, the more chance there is that a majority of any given area will actually support the changes.

This is contrasted with the roaming thing, which makes perfect sense to do at a supranational level, because it requires coorporation of a number of different governments and national agencies. International telecommunications policy, transport policy, immigration policy etc all makes sense. How many hours a week you're allowed to work, to me, doesn't. The nature of democracy is that you don't always get what you want. I don't think the solution to not getting what you want is seeking to find a different electorate who do want the same as you which is why I'm uneasy about these things being decided in the EU even when I do support their outcomes.
 
CyclopsRock said:
I dunno. There are a lot of people - like meeeee - who are somewhat on the fence about this, because to me, things like human rights, workers rights etc should be decided at a national level. There's no justification for the decision making for those issues to be performed at a more diffused level other than that you happen to prefer the result they come to on a given issue. Generally speaking, I'd rather see democracy localised rather than... whatever the opposite to "localised" is. The more locally decisions are made, the more chance there is that a majority of any given area will actually support the changes.

This is contrasted with the roaming thing, which makes perfect sense to do at a supranational level, because it requires corporation of a number of different governments and national agencies. Internationla telecommunications policy, transport policy, immigration policy etc all makes sense. How many hours a week you're allowed to work, to me, doesn't. The nature of democracy is that you don't always get what you want. I don't think the solution to not getting what you want is seeking to find a different electorate who do want the same as you which is why I'm uneasy about these things being decided in the EU even when I do support their outcomes.
Click to expand...


The thing is though that Europe has consistently made better legislation on those areas like Human Rights, and has helped to stop destructive race-to-the-bottom competition between states. Workers rights benefit by being agreed at the level of the Single Market otherwise you distort that market.


It's an easy choice for me. On the one side you have a group of people who have for decades sought to bolster my rights and power against corporations and government itself. On the other side you have a group of people who have for decades sought to take away those rights and power and hand them back to corporations. Europe keeps proving it gives a shit about me; Westminster... well.


EDIT: I do generally agree with the principle of subsidiarity though (enshrined in the EU) that says decisions should be taken at the lowest level that makes sense.
 
ThoseDeafMutes said:
No that's factually untrue. Angela Merkel personally rules the European Union with an iron fist.



Coincidence? I think not.
Click to expand...

On a serious note, I've recently begun to think that the obsession this country has with the Second World War is really quite unhealthy. Most people involved in that conflict are at least retired now, but we can't seem to let it go from the national consciousness.

My grandfather fought in Africa, and he died over a decade ago, and my Grandmother is now so demented she barely knows what year it is. Do we really need to let the experiences of their generation decide national policy?
 
CyclopsRock said:
I dunno. There are a lot of people - like meeeee - who are somewhat on the fence about this, because to me, things like human rights, workers rights etc should be decided at a national level. There's no justification for the decision making for those issues to be performed at a more diffused level other than that you happen to prefer the result they come to on a given issue. Generally speaking, I'd rather see democracy localised rather than... whatever the opposite to "localised" is. The more locally decisions are made, the more chance there is that a majority of any given area will actually support the changes.

This is contrasted with the roaming thing, which makes perfect sense to do at a supranational level, because it requires coorporation of a number of different governments and national agencies. International telecommunications policy, transport policy, immigration policy etc all makes sense. How many hours a week you're allowed to work, to me, doesn't. The nature of democracy is that you don't always get what you want. I don't think the solution to not getting what you want is seeking to find a different electorate who do want the same as you which is why I'm uneasy about these things being decided in the EU even when I do support their outcomes.
Click to expand...

The EU doesn't really concern itself with human rights anyway, not as much as most people think at least. The European Convention on Human Rights was authored by the Council of Europe, which is not a part of the European Union and encompasses all non-Lukashenko or Papal led countries in Europe.

Workers rights are another matter, but I feel that dealing with them at the supranational level is vital, due to their impact on market forces. Would you want countries to out-compete others by taking away the rights of their workers? Only by having the entire common market subject to a solid minimum of worker's rights can we ensure that each individual state continues to respect these rights rather than attempt to take them away.

Dougald said:
On a serious note, I've recently begun to think that the obsession this country has with the Second World War is really quite unhealthy. Most people involved in that conflict are at least retired now, but we can't seem to let it go from the national consciousness.

My grandfather fought in Africa, and he died over a decade ago, and my Grandmother is now so demented she barely knows what year it is. Do we really need to let the experiences of their generation decide national policy?
Click to expand...

I think there is value in remembering that not once, but twice did European countries throw their young men into the meatgrinder and inflict unimaginable atrocities on each other. If nothing else, it should reinforce anyone's desire for peaceful cooperation in Europe and the appreciation for all that has been accomplished since the end of the Second World War.

It would also be nice if Europe had learned enough to not let a genocide occur on its border whilst doing fuck all about it for far too long.
 
Sir Fragula said:
The thing is though that Europe has consistently made better legislation on those areas like Human Rights, and has helped to stop destructive race-to-the-bottom competition between states. Workers rights benefit by being agreed at the level of the Single Market otherwise you distort that market.


It's an easy choice for me. On the one side you have a group of people who have for decades sought to bolster my rights and power against corporations and government itself. On the other side you have a group of people who have for decades sought to take away those rights and power and hand them back to corporations. Europe keeps proving it gives a shit about me; Westminster... well.


EDIT: I do generally agree with the principle of subsidiarity though (enshrined in the EU) that says decisions should be taken at the lowest level that makes sense.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how you "distort the market" by having different labour regulations in different countries. Spain also gets more sun which attracts a lot of people - is that a distortion? Some countries have more.... attractive tax regimes, some a higher minimum wage, some lower VAT and some lower tax on alcohol. These differences are what makes the freedom of movement such a great thing in my book - if we were all the same, not only would national governments be basically impotent in terms of their financial controls (like, say, the Eurozone) but power would be so utterly diffuse as to be useless. Even if you believe, as you do, that it's better for these things to be uniform across the EU, that doesn't change the fact that entire nations may find themselves disenfranchised, in the same way Liverpool is when it gets a Tory government in Westminster.

I remember in the Scotland debate thread, people were talking about how Scotland having no proper border with rUK would be a problem because people could live in Scotland with its socialist super-state but work in the UK with its lower tax rates, thus starving Scotland of tax revenue. Now, quite aside from the fact that the same people were also advocating Scotland's ascension to the EU (which would allow exactly the same thing), my biggest concern was that people saw countries competing on tax policy as a bad thing. I think it's great! I think countries should be forced to compete for the best employees and companies to be based their, by making it as attractive as possible. Without that competition, with people either forced to stay where they are (the implication of a tighter border between England and Scotland) or otherwise find that all their options have exactly the same regulations and taxes leave people entirely powerless to change anything. You'd better hope that you do like whatever the other nations decide is best, because if you don't, you're screwed. Personally, I much prefer the idea of different areas competing and offering different things.

Then again, Sir Frag, if we ever agreed on anything I think we may as well disband the EU and national governments - clearly some magical 3rd way will have been discovered that's all things to all people!
 
Kabouter said:
The EU doesn't really concern itself with human rights anyway, not as much as most people think at least. The European Convention on Human Rights was authored by the Council of Europe, which is not a part of the European Union and encompasses all non-Lukashenko or Papal led countries in Europe.

Workers rights are another matter, but I feel that dealing with them at the supranational level is vital, due to their impact on market forces. Would you want countries to out-compete others by taking away the rights of their workers? Only by having the entire common market subject to a solid minimum of worker's rights can we ensure that each individual state continues to respect these rights rather than attempt to take them away.
Click to expand...

Well, see my above post, but generally speaking, that depends on the "right", surely? We talk about "rights" as if they are unquestionably positive things one simply must agree with, but that's clearly not the case. For example, I thoroughly disagree with a cap on the number of hours one can work in a week. I think it's patronising and limits the freedoms of both employees and employers. That's not a "right" that i'd welcome. That's why I'm happy that my country has, indeed, "taken away" that right. So yeah, depends on the right, eh?

Edit: Sozzlecakes for the double post.
 
CyclopsRock said:
Well, see my above post, but generally speaking, that depends on the "right", surely? We talk about "rights" as if they are unquestionably positive things one simply must agree with, but that's clearly not the case. For example, I thoroughly disagree with a cap on the number of hours one can work in a week. I think it's patronising and limits the freedoms of both employees and employers. That's not a "right" that i'd welcome. That's why I'm happy that my country has, indeed, "taken away" that right. So yeah, depends on the right, eh?

Edit: Sozzlecakes for the double post.
Click to expand...

Well, that is why not all rights are determined, but a basic set of worker's rights is. I think the EU only limits working hours for those working in transport, which isn't so much a worker's issue as much as it is a safety issue. It's not that member states have no room to maneuver, it is that they can't go overboard and take away fundamental rights, force unequal treatment or any such things in an effort to compete.
 
CyclopsRock said:
I'm not sure how you "distort the market" by having different labour regulations in different countries. Spain also gets more sun which attracts a lot of people - is that a distortion? Some countries have more.... attractive tax regimes, some a higher minimum wage, some lower VAT and some lower tax on alcohol. These differences are what makes the freedom of movement such a great thing in my book - if we were all the same, not only would national governments be basically impotent in terms of their financial controls (like, say, the Eurozone) but power would be so utterly diffuse as to be useless. Even if you believe, as you do, that it's better for these things to be uniform across the EU, that doesn't change the fact that entire nations may find themselves disenfranchised, in the same way Liverpool is when it gets a Tory government in Westminster.

I remember in the Scotland debate thread, people were talking about how Scotland having no proper border with rUK would be a problem because people could live in Scotland with its socialist super-state but work in the UK with its lower tax rates, thus starving Scotland of tax revenue. Now, quite aside from the fact that the same people were also advocating Scotland's ascension to the EU (which would allow exactly the same thing), my biggest concern was that people saw countries competing on tax policy as a bad thing. I think it's great! I think countries should be forced to compete for the best employees and companies to be based their, by making it as attractive as possible. Without that competition, with people either forced to stay where they are (the implication of a tighter border between England and Scotland) or otherwise find that all their options have exactly the same regulations and taxes leave people entirely powerless to change anything. You'd better hope that you do like whatever the other nations decide is best, because if you don't, you're screwed. Personally, I much prefer the idea of different areas competing and offering different things.

Then again, Sir Frag, if we ever agreed on anything I think we may as well disband the EU and national governments - clearly some magical 3rd way will have been discovered that's all things to all people!
Click to expand...

Actually having free movement of labor and goods across the EU would mean that yes labor and import laws to the member countries must be aligned on some level. Otherwise businesses would have the incentive to exploit such a system (imagine one country having lower import taxes than the other but there are none between them). Labour laws are a bit tricky though since people are bound by more than rational preferences in this case.
 
CyclopsRock said:
I dunno. There are a lot of people - like meeeee - who are somewhat on the fence about this, because to me, things like human rights, workers rights etc should be decided at a national level.
Click to expand...
No that just isn’t true, you cannot have a common market with workers freely traveling but vastly divergent workers rights legislation. It's all at the core of what the EU was created for.
Same for the roaming legislation it's all part of harmonising the common market to make it easy for a British company to sell its services and products in Belgium and vice versa.

Just look at the mess the Euro is in because it has a common currency without common fiscal policy. That was a mistake from the start and will in time be corrected. You would have virtually the same situation in a common market without common rules on trade, workers rights, laws, ect ect...

There is a good reason we will soon have a common civil law in Europe, it's been in the works for years if not decades and is just a few more years out. Then you can I can form a contract and have the exact same law book apply. We would say §133 and see the same law in different languages.
The complex system as it is now with legislation from the EU that is then incorporated into national law will become greatly reduced and simplified.

And still it is all part of the original idea to have a common market and giving every person in every member state the same access to it.
The euro has that at its core, Schengen has that at its core, no more roaming charges have that at their core.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

FCC reinstates Net Neutrality
News 
33
3K
winjer replied
Hypothetical: If the resistance reprogramed a T-X and sent it back in time to protect John......
25
1K
Ecotic replied
EU approves mealworms as additive in food
2 3
137
6K
kevboard replied
Elon Musk becomes the first person to reach a net worth of $400 billion
2 3
135
7K
SF Kosmo replied
  • Locked
Oh sheeet, EU be juicing - $840 billion 'Rearm Europe' plan announced
8 9 10 11 12
560
18K
Durien replied
Top Bottom