EC to censor Internet by mandating filtering: 'Cleanternet'?

To illustrate just how good intentions can lead to censorship and encourage others to follow our lead, here's what the naive newbie Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom intends to do - divert resources from removing child porn websites by mandating a pan-European filtering system.
First, it was child porn, then extreme porn, then suicide sites, then terrorist support, then racism, then xenophobia, then gender discrimination, then libel, then they took your children away...this video nicely shows how it works.
It fits with a broader consumer rights agenda for Europe (the 'Stockholm' syndrome?) that is led by Viviane Reding and generally looks pro-freedom and privacy (p11-Reding) and scary censoring (p35/36 Malmstrom):

• Communication on new legal framework for data protection after entry into force of Lisbon Treaty;
• New comprehensive legal framework for data protection (but note pp29-30);
• Communication on 'Privacy and Trust in Digital Europe': ensuring citizens’ confidence in new services;
• Recommendation to authorise the negotiation of a personal data protection agreement with US;
• Communication on core elements for data protection in EU-3rd country agreements for law enforcement purposes. I hope the EC uses the study I worked on in 2007 - I was responsible for the India bit!

Taking net neutrality seriously

Canadian regulator Konrad von Finckenstein illuminated what are the usually partisan public FCC hearings back in January and its worth reviewing what he said:
'We expect ISPs offering mobile broadband services to comply with our framework. If problems arise, we will review the regulatory measures that apply to them, or in other words we will lift or cut back the current exemption... Our decision on Internet traffic management practices was well received by all stakeholders: consumers, ISPs, technology companies and other interested groups. The decision came into effect 30 days after its release. ISPs have been disclosing their traffic management practices, as required by the decision. We will review their practices in response to any complaints we receive or if we consider it necessary.'
Also note a nice article on the growth of search neutrality ('Get Google'), tracing its progress via Andrew Odlyzko's 2008 paper - though ignoring Nico van Eijk's earlier work! Europe is across the water...
Speaking of which, I attended the 'Internet security and Internet freedom' seminar at Princeton organised by Stephen Schultze - great gathering, lots of great people including Rebecca MacKinnon, Ian Brown and Ethan Zuckerman. The keynote was by Alec Ross who had a Clinton first term circa 1994 title of 'Senior Advisor for Innovation' to Sec. Clinton. Alec made a lot of good points and is clearly a good guy in a still-authoritarian and 'war of terror' oriented administration. The killer final question to him was how come the administration doesn't practise what it preaches to others about Internet freedom and user rights online. Well...It led to to discussion of Skype and other good encrypted programmes used by dumb users (me) and with hacking attempts by dumb secret agents from evil governments. It made me realize again - yes the Vietnamese can hack their political opponents then throw bloggers in jail, yes the Ruskies can attack Estonia and Georgia but:
[1] we're not at cyberwar - its consultant-speak for outsource infosec and gimme me billions of dollars;
[2] the greatest weapon of freedom for hacktivists may be Tor, yet for ordinary people its Skype - so long as its backdoors only stay open in China...net neutrality is a POLITICAL issue of great merit there
Activists who work with North Korea, Vietnam and China then explained how you can't preach the First Amendment when no-one else cares about it, its Article 19 of the International Convention, which most of them have signed.
As a result, the pathetic political arm-twisting by the EC to enforce kiddie porn site blocking when they should focus everything on removing the websites, is depressing and results in China saying they are part of the global fight to censor the Internet, led by the EC...see Google's explanation of same.

EC e2020 views on Internet (not what NYT or WashPost report)

The EU telecoms ministers declared in Granada their view of NGA access and the Digital Agenda, including:
"1. Take concrete steps to overcome the digital divide by meeting the target of 100% coverage of basic broadband to all citizens by 2013 and promote wide take-up of high speed broadband by 2020.

2. Provide a strong impulse to the roll out of competitive next generation high speed networks through promotion of competition between broadband providers and by implementing a predictable regulatory regime for the promotion of efficient investment in high speed broadband infrastructure and related services, based on swift implementation of the revised EU e-communication services framework.

3. Boost competition and financing of the networks of the future by encouraging efficient and sustainable private long term investments and providing public support for open networks where needed and appropriate.

4. Promote the rapid development of innovative digital wireless services and the adoption of the future EU radio spectrum policy programme, with the objective of an efficient use of radio spectrum.

5. Safeguard the openness of the internet through implementing and monitoring of the new EU electronic communications rules on network provision."

Note the commitment to openness! 
UPDATE: this free market rant on behalf of the mobile sector (by an ex-Yankee Grouper now offering himself as 'expert witness' on behalf of mobiles) shows that operators are fearful of EC intervention (it is co-regulation not self-regulation that is proposed but the article is so littered with mistakes that we should not take anything in it as more than propaganda):
'The European Parliament passed a telecoms reform package last November that favors self-regulation (sic) through competition and lays down minimal network neutrality conditions. Kroes has adopted this and says she welcomes consultations, but her threats are worrying. According to the Financial Times, she says she will not tolerate Internet service providers that restrict the speed of commercial websites and would take action if operators such as Telefonica and France Telecom demand payments in exchange for carrying bandwidth-guzzling services such as Google's YouTube.'

What if copper could provide the answer? VDSL2

Enough of the European law and its willful misinterpretation in Washington - Beltway tangoing...
Here's an interesting proposition - Alcatel-Lucent is close to standardization of their VDSL2 specification, using vectoring and virtual bonding to squeeze up to 100Mb/s at 1km out of 2 copper pairs in lab conditions.
So maybe we can get up to 50Mb/s realistically from VDSL in semi-urban areas - that is FTTC which is cheapish to develop.
As I have been ploughing through Odlyzko's epic Railway Mania manuscript, which explains how much 1830s and 1840-45 railway development eventually made money for its investors, and that the entire 1825-50 railways boom entirely transformed first England (it was almost entirely concentrated there) and then the world, it has become clear that the 'beautiful illusion' that helped drive that investment by the 1850s into the valleys and mountains of England will not be reproduced by regulated monopolies today. So maybe VDSL2 will at least bridge some of the gap that irrationally exuberant markets are not noticeably keen to jump into!

Danger: Policy Transfer in Action Part 2

UPDATE 2: 36 hours later, my comment appeared on the AT&T blog - thanks! I suspect no-one was reading by then but still...

I wrote a letter yesterday to the NYTimes explaining that their op-ed was rather misleading. 

Full disclosure, here it is:

Sent: 21 April 2010 17:47

To: letters@nytimes.com

Subject: Re Op-Ed 20 April: Europe has passed new network neutrality legislation

Dear sir
I read with interest your guest op-ed 'How to Regulate the Internet Tap' April 20, 2010.
These eminent economists draw useful lessons in trying to achieve transparency and consumer information. However, they miss the essential regulatory message.
Europe's ISPs are now subject to new laws (Directives EC/2009/136 and EC/2009/140) that enforce transparency, force them to inform consumers and prevent their blocking Voice over Internet Protocol.
Your 'take-away' from the European experience should be that legislation at federal level backed by rigorous federal level oversight of state law enforcement is required to cope with ISP discriminatory and obfuscatory activities, even in the more competitive European market.
That this is to be achieved by what we in Europe call 'co-regulation' does not hide the hard law and harder regulatory will to enforce these measures in the consumer's best interest.
Sincerely
Christopher T. Marsden
Senior Lecturer in Communications Law
University of Essex

AT&T strange view of Kroes speech and lessons for US

Its not surprising that a US duopolist would try to spin the Kroes speech, but this effort by AT&T on their blog seems to be very selective on her speech in Paris last week. I left a comment but they did not publish it (unsurprising really, and late publishing of comments generally avoids all readers). Here's what she really said.
The takeaway for the US is that you need legal authority via legislation to make net neutrality stick, and that you need federal judges who support decisive regulatory action to implement those measures. Oh, and as Lessig points out, you need broadband competition, and consumer rather than corporate welfare for your legislators. Without that you're stuck with misleading duopoly...
She has explained her policy further in a speech yesterday:
"It is therefore essential to establish clear regulatory guidelines to encourage investment in next generation access networks, while ensuring that such networks remain open and competitive in the interest of consumers... one could almost say that the only existing Digital Single Market for audiovisual material is the illegal one. People are able to access content EU wide but only through illegal file-sharing whereas much content from other Member States is not on offer at all. I am convinced that creating the legal Digital Single Market will lead to a wealth of options available to citizens. This will strike a blow against piracy to the benefit of authors and artists, and without endangering the open architecture that is essential for the internet's utility. It is obviously common sense that we fix problems like this."
Meanwhile, in the UK, David Cameron's office explains why you should only vote Conservative if you want lobbyists' version of the truth about broadband.
UPDATE: my comment has still not appeared on the AT&T blog, while some rather wonderful comms economists have picked up on the Kroes speech but spun it as very free-market - which it aint! - strange how legislative backing for net neutrality and a commitment to stop VOIP blocking are misinterpreted in DC...

Liberal Democrats have potential for intelligent telecoms policies

Now this is freakish - not only would the LibDems repeal the DEAct parts that refer to blocking/disconnection - but the wife of their leader negotiated the WTO Basic Agreement on Telecoms (and formerly was a BT lawyer). A regulatory lawyer sleeping with a government minister? This is a GOOD thing.
Note to those from North America - the LibDems are the 3rd party in UK politics, but are suddenly tied for first in opinion polls 2 weeks before the General Election. They may form a government as minority partner to the two IT-clueless main parties.