Interception Modernisation Programme into background - first Tory privacy test?

Alan Johnson has kicked the IMP legislation into the long grass, with no upcoming Bill meaning it'll be an early test for the Tories in 2010-11 dealing with GCHQ and some pretty serious DPI needed to track all our data. ISPs are - ahem - unconvinced by it...maybe we won't have DPI for breakfast, lunch and dinner after all?

Net neutrality exported by Genachowski? ITU discussion

Those clueless bureaucrats who inhabit most of the dusty telecoms ministries are to be told about the future by the FCC's neutralist-in-chief. I hope he doesn't expect more than polite ignorance - Rudolf van der Berg twitters that those who aren't asleep have no idea what IP interconnection is!
"Our goals are to ensure that consumers and the market can pick winners and losers; to promote competition; and to promote continued investment and innovation as our Internet future unfolds. At the FCC, we have started a proceeding aimed at preserving an open and unfettered Internet. This proceeding is not about government regulation of the Internet. It's about ensuring that no one, not the government and not companies that provide Internet access, restricts the free flow of lawful information and services over the Internet. We believe that broadband is the future of mobile, and also that mobile is a key part of the strategy for broadband."

Where we are: net neutrality lite

Now that the EU, USA and Canada are on the brink of enforcing transparency and reasonableness tests on ISPs (and talking about mobile), here's a reminder of my 'lite' analysis.
Apologies for slow updating - I'm in the UK on 3 mobile 'midband' - useless!

Glass half-full? La Quadrature analysis

A lot of lawyers are scrambling to decipher what the new Article 1.3a means - clearly it allows for adjudication and then potentially a fair trial at a later stage - after being cut off or before? Here's La Quadrature's analysis, which is a lot more balanced than some might expect:

The new provision gives2 "effective judicial protection and due process", guarantees "the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy" and the respect of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

However, the text only speaks of "a prior fair and impartial procedure" instead of a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, guaranteed by the original "amendment 138", and contains loopholes and ambiguities. The invalidation of freedom-killer measures such as "three strikes policies" will now depend on interpretation by the European Court of Justice and national courts. Moreover, the text only relates to measures taken by Member States and thereby fails to bar telecom operators and entertainment industries from knocking down the founding principle of Net neutrality.

Engstrom of Pirate Party hails new language as a victory

This is very interesting - the fact that some kind of prior tribunal needs to hear a disconnection appeal, and the need for judicial hearings after disconnection, is seen as positive by the Pirate and Green parties. That's more explicable when you see what the Council wanted as a sting in the tail of the recital!

"This shall not Affect the competence of a Member State, in conformity with its own constitutional order and with fundamental rights, to establish, inter alia, a requirement of a judicial decision Authorizing the measures to be ceilings."

European Parliament caves in as expected - Telecoms Package will be national law by 2011

That was quick, no messing around pretending to stand on principle!

A review of where we stand:

Following a series of Trialogue and CoReper meetings, the Presidency proposed new text to replace Amendment 138/46 for consideration at the first Conciliation Committee meeting last evening 4th November (to be inserted as a new Article 1 paragraph 3a of the Framework Directive 2002/21/EC);

The Council (27 member states) fully supported this text ;

The Citizens' Rights directive (amending the Universal Service and e-Privacy directives) along with the Regulation establishing BEREC was approved at the General Affairs Council on 26th October - Member States have 18 months to implement these from the the point of publication in the Official Journal of the European Union.

Here's the new text in the Framework Directive Article 1.3a (subject to a final vote in the European Parliament):

Any of these measures regarding end-users' access to or use of service and applications through electronic communications networks liable to restrict those fundamental rights or freedoms may only be imposed if they are appropriate, proportionate and necessary within a democratic society, and their implementation shall be subject to adequate procedural safeguards in conformity with the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and with general principles of Community law, including effective judicial protection and due process.

Accordingly, these measures may only be taken with due respect for the principle of presumption of innocence and the right to privacy. A prior fair and impartial procedure shall be guaranteed, including the right to be heard of the person or persons concerned subject to the need for appropriate conditions and procedural arrangements in duly substantiated cases of urgency in conformity with European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. The right to an effective and timely judicial review shall be guaranteed.

120,000 poorer households to lose Internet due to Labour tax?

The maths is simple - raising Internet prices 50p/month to pay for rural connections will not only distort whatever market there may be out there in middle-class rural idylls, but also will increase prices 3%, reducing the market 0.6% and therefore 120,000 households. Charlie Dunstone speaks more sense - and of course has a hotline to David Cameron's team!

The tax is the 'flagship' with 'Three strikes' of the Digital Economy Bill out this month - the dying flail of the Labour government.