The European open internet is under imminent threat. BLACKOUT EUROPE

[magicmonkeybars]

they can do whatever they want I'll just stop using the internet if I don't like it anymore profits will fall and laws will be changed back.

 

[caster272]

Has anyone heard of a book called "The Traveler" by John Twelve Hawks. The main premise of the book is that various corporate and government groups are working together to basically impose a digital Panopticon, a prison in which everyone assumes they are always being watched. This is accomplished by careful fear mongering and control of the media to impose greater and greater control of the flow of information. I'm sure many of you can see how close to reality this already is. There exists entire companies dedicated entirely to merely having information, cities have an unnecessary number of video cameras. This law would simply be another step towards a complete prison.

 

[Monocle Man]

Belgian TV news channel: Hasn't mentioned anything about it
Other Belgian TV news channel: Hasn't mentioned anything about it either
Any of the radio channels: No
Internet provider: Not at all

And since the Belgian internet providers charge 50% more than neighbouring countries for the exact same services, I'm quite sure that the European council hasn't anything to say to the providers.

Therefore, I'm going to smile at this "news" and continue doing nothing special as nothing like this happens.

 

[Rhayn]

Meh. I doubt it will go through, and I'm sure if it does it will last for a day. That bullshit is not even thought out properly, most likely made by a 63-year-old technofobe.

If it does go through and lasts, I'm moving to Canada.

 

[dragoongfa]

I have been lurking in the Escapist forums for more than a year but this here topic has finally drawn me out of the woodwork.

The amount of misinformation that the OP forces down our throats is staggering to say the least.

The said legislation is has 3 primary objectives, the first being a move to harmonize the various national legislator and regulatory arms of the EU, in sort every EU nation will have laws and procedures that are similar and fast.

The second is related to the first, with harmonized legislator and regulatory branches the EU nations should adopt open market policies that will strengthen the competitiveness of e-retailers and EU based sites.

The 3rd objective is to harmonize the use of radio frequencies within the EU.

This is the common position of the said legislation:

http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/08/st16/st16496.en08.pdf

If anyone cares to read the above position he will see that every step has been taken to ensure safe,secure and unrestricted access to the Internet always in accordance with the treaty of Lisbon and the UN human rights treaties.

 

[the_hessian]

Fuck this, I'll make my own country.
Who wants to help me invade a pre-existing country so I can take it over?

Sure, as long as I get to be a officer of the Max army. Or what it's called.

Of course. I'll put you in charge of blowing shit up.

Fuck this, I'll make my own country.
Who wants to help me invade a pre-existing country so I can take it over?

If it means no censorship on the internet, then I'm with you.

The government will control everything.
Since I am the head of said government, this means no censorship of television programs, internet, music on the radio, etc.

"May I join this most noble cause?!.
We must take land by forcefel force and create a country that does naught but provide uncensored internets.
This should be the true cause of all mankind, to preserve our final bastion of uncontrolled freedom of choise and free speech!
To arms my brothers! To arms!!!"

 

[the_hessian]

Ah, pooh! [sorry about the 2 posts here]

This is an utter travisty!
How can they be allowed to do this, other than of course ignorance, prudence, and abuse of power.
I am disgusted by this news, and to be honest I hope it is nothing but shameless scare mongering, but with the amount of sites listed with info on it, and others I've found bits about it on, I doubt it is that little... ugh!!!

I feel like I may cry for a week if this all goes ahead...

 

[BardSeed]

Funnily enough, I was just coming here to start a thread about this. I've already sent an email to four MEP's. The link that the blackout site provides to email them won't accept the pre-written email; it's like refusing a petition because too many people have signed the same one. I found their contact info on this site: http://www.laquadrature.net/wiki/MEPs_GB and used hotmail to send it.

 

[Steve Dark]

BAH! Steve Dark cannot be silenced. They may try, but they can't take the sky fro-

 

[Frank_Sinatra_]

Fuck this, I'll make my own country.
Who wants to help me invade a pre-existing country so I can take it over?

I'll bring the rifles and ghillie suits. Why don't we take over Hawaii?

 

[Ishnuvalok]

The internet is not television. The internet is not something to which you can offer "packages". .

"The internet is not something you just dump something on, it's not a big truck. It's a series of tubes!"

 

[ohwell]

nobody has commented on how google would fight this tooth and nail for business reasons

nobody in the moneyworld except MPAA would like this the slightest

 

[oktalist]

Under the proposed new rules, broadband providers will be legally able to limit the number of websites you can look at, and to tell you whether or not you are allowed to use particular services.

They are already legally able to do this through their terms and conditions to which you agree when you sign a contract with them. The telecom package did contain a clause that would make it illegal, but the amendment under discussion here would remove that clause, making it legal again, returning to the status quo. It might be good if the amendment was voted out, because that would create more legal protections for online freedom, but if it's voted in then nothing will change, we'll be in the same situation that we're in today regarding the legality of cable TV style "limited service" deals. They would still be legal, like they are now. No-one is suggesting it would become mandatory for ISPs to impose such systems. And as has been pointed out elsewhere in this thread, it would be economic suicide. It's just that some people want to leave the option open. Indeed, it might make sense for little old grand-mama to only pay ?1/month for a service that doesn't include sites or protocols that she's never going to use, while young Johnny whizz-kid pays full price for the full service; that's not a 2-tier system, that's just not having to pay for what you're not going to use, and that would become illegal if the amendment was voted out. What's next, requiring everyone to get 10Mbit connections? Actually hang about, I may be on to something there.

Also, each EU nation state would have to ratify the package before it could become law there; no EU legislation is law until it is ratified by your government, and that depends upon a vote in your parliament.

And I'm not hearing anything about this from EFF Europe, so I conclude it can't be that important.

 

[BardSeed]

I got a reply from one of my MEP's. It's a bullshit reply which basically tells me that his mind is made up. I'll highlight some of the biggest "WTF" moments.

Dear [spelled my name wrong],


Thank you for your email. My colleague, Mr. Malcolm Harbour, is the "rapporteur" of the Universal Service and Users´ Rights report, and has been striving to boost the consumer provisions to ensure there are as many benefits as possible for electronic communications services users in Europe, and to ensure that the key principles of openness and quality of service are maintained.



Many of the amendments Mr. Harbour has tabled boost transparency so that consumers will be able to make informed decisions about which services they would like to use. This would mean that if Internet Service operators decide to restrict access to certain services (which is the current situation, for example, where Skype is currently blocked on some mobile phones), the consumer could then decide not to use that service provider and opt for another one, which does provide Skype.
[So exactly what I can do without this package, then?]


We also consider that, where operators monitor or shape traffic to sustain service delivery at times of peak demand, consumers should be advised of the approach taken and the impact on service quality. Neither of these provisions condones anti competitive or discriminatory behaviour against certain types of traffic. In these cases, regulators already have the power to intervene under the general provisions of the rules authorising communications providers.



You may be interested to know about the many other consumer benefits included in the report following last week's Committee vote, highlighted below:

* Contracts of a 24 month maximum duration to avoid consumers being locked into long contracts and the requirement for operators to offer 12 month contracts to consumers, particularly for the benefit of younger and more mobile users.
[Granted, it says requirement to OFFER, but pushing this as a positive point seems contradictory to the first half of this sentence.]
* Caller location information for consumers when using the EU emergency number 112, which will save more lives.
* Users would also be notified on the cost of subsidised handsets, should the contract be terminated early, to avoid hidden costs.
* Number porting would be limited to one day so consumers do not face a lengthy disruption regarding their phone use. However, there are exceptions for cases of slamming and other mis-selling in cases when consumers are switched against their will.
* Disabled users to have equivalent access to communications services.
[I don't think he expected anybody to actually read this... I'm not aware of disabled people having any difficulties using the internet.]
* The importance of keeping the Internet open for consumers by enabling regulation to intervene if a carrier discriminates against a particular service provider, for example by blocking or slowing traffic, is also included in the report
[The importance of protecting your freedom through restriction...]
* A new flexibility for universal service requirements to take into account new technologies, and proposals for the Commission to complete its review on US obligations by January 2010.
* Consumers will be better informed of available tariffs, usage patterns and have the right to cost control notifications when monthly bills exceed their set threshold
* Data breach notification requirement when consumers´ data is lost via an electronic communications service provider.

Thank you for your interest in our work. If you have any further questions, please do not hesitate to contact me.



Yours sincerely,



Jonathan Evans MEP (Wales)

Chairman of the Delegation for Relations with the US.

Feel free to point out any more bullshit or if I misinterpreted anything.

 

[AdmiralWolverineLightningbolt]

my fellow escapists! if this happens then i say
ANARCHY!

ANARCHY IN THE GALAXY I SAY!

 

[Zombie_Fish]

Honestly, they don't know where to stop do they. This is just another way to rip us off and for the big companies to earn more money by stomping on the little man.

 

[matnatz]

Shit, does this effect porn? I mean, the packs might include Playboy or that type of crap, but I don't want that.

Anywho, if this does happen I bet five students living in a basment will start a new provider that doesn't have these limits and become mind bogglingly rich.

 

[SyphonX]

I have a hard time comprehending how people go about thinking something like this would never happen. I've read some people say stuff like: "The government has enough sense to not vote for this."

Really?

So the government(s) had enough sense to not go to a war with Iraq for no reason?

The U.S. had enough sense to vote against the Patriot Act?

Britain had enough sense to not put cameras up everybody's ass?

Last time I checked, business has no voice against government. Government does as it wants and then business adapts, usually selling out to the government.

Food for Thought:

"The central economic idea of all forms of fascism is corporatism."

"Historically, corporatism refers to a political or economic system in which power is held by civic assemblies that represent economic, industrial, agrarian, social, cultural, and/or professional groups. These civic assemblies are known as corporations (not the same as the legally incorporated business entities known as corporations, though some are such). Corporations are unelected bodies with an internal hierarchy; their purpose is to exert control over the social and economic life of their respective areas."

It is the classic example of a subversive takeover of the people by the government. Trumping the government hierarchy by instituting lobbyist control over the government and or full corporate control over the people.

Europe and the western world has been saying -"This will never happen."- to all the shit that (gasp), lo and behold, fucking happened over the past 20 years that everybody has to deal with now. It doesn't stop, it just keeps going and going. All of Europe joins the EU and suddenly it's much easier to make broad sweeping legislation. The U.S. calls in the Patriot Act and suddenly it's free reign to do anything without consequence.

Now here's a simple exercise you can do at home.

After all the stuff you've seen over the recent years in ridiculous new legislation and government control, ask yourself, - What would be Next? .....
.
...
....

This

 

[matnatz]

The internet is not television. The internet is not something to which you can offer "packages"...

The internet is not just something you dump stuff on. The internet is a not a big truck. The internet is a series of tubes!