It seems the European Union has learned little from the hard-won fight in the United States to preserve net neutrality. Today, the European Commission announced an agreement between the European Parliament and EU Council that---on the surface---claims to promise to protect net neutrality, while simultaneously allowing for exceptions that would threaten its very existence.
As part of the agreement, the Commission vows to conserve the so-called "open internet," writing in a press release that "users will be free to access the content of their choice, they will not be unfairly blocked or slowed down anymore, and paid prioritisation will not be allowed." And yet, the agreement also allows for "specialised services of higher quality," meaning that services like Internet TV or telesurgery would be fed through a faster network. That sounds a lot like a fast-lane.
In a fact sheet outlining the agreement, the EU uses equivocal language to explain why this does not, in fact, violate net neutrality. "It is not a question of fast lanes and slow lanes --- as paid prioritisation is not allowed," it reads, "but of making sure that all needs are served, that all opportunities can be seized and that no one is forced to pay for a service that is not needed."
The problem is, even if those specialized services don't pay for faster service, they're still receiving preferential treatment over other internet services, potentially, even competing ones. It's in the internet service providers' hands to determine what those services will be, leaving a gaping hole in the system wide open for abuse. And the Commission is light on details as to what the punishment will be for those who do break the rules, writing only that "providers infringing the net neutrality rules will face significant pecuniary and administrative sanctions."
Compare that to the net neutrality battle in the United States, which ended with the Federal Communications Commission announcing in a WIRED op-ed that it was reclassifying service providers as Title II common carriers. That effectively takes the power out of the hands of providers and makes it possible for the FCC to set rates and regulate the industry to ensure that no service receives preferential treatment. All of which makes the EU's plan feel at the very least incomplete---if not completely disingenuous.
Then there's the issue of zero-rating, which the U.S. is also grappling with even after the Title II reclassification. Zero rating means that service providers allow users to access certain applications without incurring any data charges. It's the model that Mark Zuckerberg is currently using to spread free but limited Internet in the developing world through the Facebook-backed organization Internet.org.
This free-Internet-for-all model sounds nice in theory, particularly because it makes Internet access available to people with limited ability to pay for it. But in reality, it means that applications which aren't included in the free package are suddenly at a severe disadvantage. The European Commission's rules would allow for zero rating, and while it seems regulators are aware of the risks, they once again provide little insight into how they plan to mitigate them.
"We have to make sure that commercial practices benefit users and do not in practice lead to situations where end-users' choice is significantly reduced," the fact sheet reads. "Regulatory authorities will therefore have to monitor and ensure compliance with the rules."
The one spot of good news in all of this is that regulators have agreed to abolish roaming charges across Europe by June 2017. Meanwhile, the new guidelines still need to be formally approved by the European Parliament and Council. The rules are set to become law by April 30, 2016.
