Neutralidade da Rede na União Européia

1. Neutralidade da Rede na União Européia Paulo LopesConselheiroparaSociedadedaInformaçáo e MídiaDelegaçãodaUniãoEuropéia no Brasil Apresentação para a SindiTelebrasilBrasilia, 15 maio 2012

2. Sumário • A União Européia e suas instituições • Neutralidade de Rede na UE – situação atual • Neutralidade de Rede na UE – próximos passos

3. UNIÃO EUROPÉIA vs. BRASIL

4. A UniãoEuropéia • 27 Estados-membros (novos países deverão aderir nos próximos anos) • Quase 500 milhões de habitantes • 23 línguas oficiais • Criada pelo Tratado de Roma há mais de 50 anos (1957) • Um mercado comum • Uma união econômica e monetária (Euro)

5. Principais Instituições da União Europeia • Comissão Européia - é o orgão Executivo da União Européia, que propõe as políticas e legislações da UE e supervisiona sua implementação; é atualmente composta por 27 comissários e presidida por Durão Barroso • Parlamento Europeu – é a principal autoridade legislativa e orçamentária da UE e exerce um controlo político sobre as outras instituições; tem atualmente 785 deputados eleitos por sufrágio direto e universal em cada Estado Membro, em número proporcional à respectiva população • Conselho da União Européia – é o principal centro de decisão da UE e reúne os membros dos governos nacionais com as mesmas pastas; o Conselho dos Chefes de Estado e de Governo recebe o nome de Conselho Europeu • Presidência da União Européia – é exercida de forma rotativa pelos Estados-Membros • Tribunal de Justiça das Comunidades Européias – é o órgão judiciário da UE e vela pelo respeito do Direito comunitário; é atualmente composto por 27 juízes e 8 advogados-gerais

6. Processo legislativo da UE • Envolve principalmente 3 instituições: • Comissão Européia - propõe a legislação e supervisiona a sua implementação pelos Estados-membros após sua aprovação • Conselho da UE e Parlamento Europeu – discutem e aprovam a legislação proposta pela Comissão Européia através de um procedimento de conciliação, envolvendo duas leituras da proposta da Comissão e uma conciliação final em caso de falta de acordo • Principais mecanismos de legislação da UE: • Diretivas – são mandatórias para os Estados-membros no que respeita ao resultado a ser obtido, mas deixando uma margem de liberdade para cada país para a implementação • Regulações – são mandatórias para os Estados-membros desde o momento da sua publicação • Decisões – são apenas mandatórias para aqueles a quem se dirigem • Recomendações ou Opiniões – não são mandatórias

7. Sumário • A União Européia e suas instituições • Neutralidade de Rede na UE – situação atual • Neutralidade de Rede na UE – próximos passos

8. Net NeutralityMain Steps in the EU • Adoption of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications services – end of 2009 • Included a declaration by the European Commission on its commitment to: • “preserve the open and neutral character of the internet” and • “monitor the impact of market and technological developments on net freedoms, reporting to the European Parliament and the Council before end of 2010 on whether additional guidance is required” • European Commission Communication on “The open internet and net neutrality in Europe” – April 2011 • Deadline for transposition of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications services in Member States’ national legislations – May 2011

9. Commission Communication on Net Neutrality • Provides the official European Commission position on the Net Neutrality debate (published in April 2011) • Preceded by a public consultation conducted between June and September 2010 • Which attracted over 300 responses from stakeholders (network operators, internet content providers, EU Member States, consumer and civil society organisations) • The results of this public consultation were published by the Commission • Joint Summit on Net Neutrality organised by the European Commission and the Parliament held in November 2010

10. Communication on Net NeutralityMain Conclusions The European Commission in its Communication: • Reiterates its commitment to mantaining an open and robust internet to which everyone has access • Concludes that the rules on transparency, switching providers and quality of service that form part of the EU regulatory framework for electronic communications favour the preservation of the open and neutral character of the internet, notably by contributing to produce a competitive market • Considers that it is important to allow enough time for these rules of the EU regulatory framework (which entered into force in May 2011) to be applied in practice

11. Diretiva de Acesso & Interconexão Diretiva de Proteção de Dados Diretiva de Serviço Universal e Direitos dos Usuários Quadroregulatório de Serviços de ComunicaçãoEletrônicada UE Diretiva de Liberalização Diretiva Quadro Diretiva de Autorizações Decisão sobre Espectro Radioelétrico Recommendação sobre mercados relevantes

12. EU Regulatory Framework “Net Neutrality“ Definition • There is not a specific definition of “Net Neutrality” in the current EU regulatory framework • National regulatory authorities of EU Member States are required to promote the interests of EU citizens by promoting the ability of end-usrrs to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice • This is subject to applicable law and without prejudice to EU or national measures to counter illegal activities (such as the fight against crime)

13. Main issues related with Net Neutrality • Transparency • Consumer protection • Data protection • Traffic management

14. Transparency • Transparency is a key aspect for net neutrality • Providing adequate information to consumers on possible limitations or traffic management enables them to make informed choices • The EU regulatory framework establishes that when subscribing to a service, and in case of any changes thereafter, consumers will be informed about the service quality they can expect, through: • Conditions limiting access to and/or use of services and applications • Procedures put in place by the provider in order to measure and shape traffic so as to avoid filling or overfilling a network link, and how these may impact on service quality

15. Consumer Protection (I) The EU regulatory framework establishes that: • Consumers should also be able to switch operators, keeping their numbers, within one working day • The conditions and procedures for contract termination should not act as a disincentive against changing service provider • Operators muct offer users the possibility to subscribe to a contract with a maximum duration of 12 months • National regulators – after consulting the European Commission – have the power to intervene by setting minimum quality of service requirements for network transmission services and to guarantee a robust level of quality of service

16. Consumer Protection (II) • The majority of EU national regulatory authorities have received complaints from consumers concerning the discrepancy between advertised and actual delivery speeds for an internet connection • Transparency on the quality of the service is also essential • A balance needs to be struck between simplicity and the provision of meaningful and appropriately detailed information • Given the complexity and technical nature of the multiplicity of internet offerings from the consumer perspective

17. Data Protection • EU law offers protection to individuals regarding the processing of personal data, including when decisions significantly affecting individuals are taken on the basis of automated processing of their personal data • Any activity related to blocking or management of traffic on such a basis will therefore have to comply with the data protection requirements

18. Traffic Management (I) • Much of the net neutrality debate centers around traffic management and what constitutes reasonable traffic management • The European Commission recognises in its Communication that traffic management is considered necessary to ensure the smooth flow of traffic, particularly at times when networks become congested • given the growing demands placed on broadband networks as well as different services and applications which require continuous data exchange • The Communication also reports on the broad consensus that existed at the public consultation that operators and ISPs should be allowed to determine their own business models and commercial arrangements, subject to applicable laws

19. Traffic Management (II) The Commission’s Communication recognises three different types of traffic management techniques: • Packet differentiation allows different classes of traffic to be treated differently, for example for services which require real-time communication such as live streaming of audio or video events and VoIP • This differentiation guarantees a certain minimum QoS to end-users • IP routing allows ISPs to route packets via different communication paths to avoid congestion or provide better services • An ISP may route packets towards a server that contains a copy of the requested information which is located in its network or somewhere close • Filtering allows an Internet Service Provider to distinguish between “safe” and “harmful” traffic and block the latter before it reaches its intended destination

20. Traffic Management (III) The following concerns related to existing traffic management practices were raised at the public consultation process: • Blocking - can take the form of either making it difficult to access or outright restricting certain services or websites on the internet • A classic example of this would be mobile internet operators blocking VoIP services (usually based on specific contract terms) • Concerns were also expressed that blocking could also be applied in the future to other services, such as TV broadcasting via the internet • Throttling - a technique employed to manage traffic and minimize congestion, which may be used to degrade (e.g. slow down) certain type of traffic and so affect the quality of content • such as video streaming provided to consumers by a competitor • Concerns were also raised about blocking and/or throttling of peer-to-peer traffic on both fixed and mobile networks

21. ETNO Position on Traffic Management • Comments of ETNO (European Telecommunications Network Operators) at the Commission’s public consultation: • ETNO encourages the European Commission to state clearly that the question whether enhanced quality of service offers “might have negative effects on other providers” is one of competition law and should be dealt with on a fact-based case-by-case basis. • So far, no problematic issues around quality of service-based offers have arisen in communications markets, clearly indicating the absence of a market failure. • As regards future offers for pre-defined quality of service offered to third party content and online service providers, individual arrangements with third parties may exist alongside offers which are open to all interested parties. • Where operators are able to enter commercial arrangements for predefined quality of service at wholesale level, this creates positive commercial incentives to widely offer the service to increase revenues.

22. Content Monitoring Liability in the EU • The liability regime for internet providers that store or transmit third-party content is harmonized at the EU level in the e-Commerce Directive from 2000 • This Directive provides for a “safe haven” regime under which providers of hosting, caching and mere conduit services are exempt from liability (under certain conditions) • This Directive also states that the providers of these services cannot be subject to any general monitoring obligation • Courts can only impose temporary monitoring obligations in specific cases

23. ETNO Position on Content Monitoring Liability • Comments of ETNO at the Commission’s public consultation: • If held liable for third party content, intermediaries’ willingness to host any content created by others will in fact be greatly reduced and they would tend towards blocking more content than justified and self-censor, especially where definitions of illegal content are vague and overly broad. • Imposing strong and disproportionate liability on private intermediaries may therefore create concerns and discourage them from allowing users to disseminate content. • This could have negative effects on the freedom of speech and on the full benefits of the Information Society. • Policies aimed at eradicating all infringement and at holding intermediaries broadly liable for user content will harm free expression and online innovation.

24. Data Retention in the EU • Data retention is regulated at the EU level by a Directive of 2006 • The Directive harmonises national rules on the retention of data (internet, fixed and mobile data) • Objective is ensuring the investigation, detection and prosecution of “serious crime” • Data must be retained for a minimum of 6 months and a maximum of 2 years • The issue of who should bear the costs related to the retention of data is decided at the national level

25. Net neutrality law adopted in the Netherlands • The Netherlands is the only EU Member State which has adopted a national law on network neutrality (May 2012) • The main provisions of the Dutch law are: • Allows traffic management in case of congestion and for network security (as long as these measures serve the interests of the internet user) • Restricts the use of invasive wiretapping technologies (such as deep packet inspection, DPI) by internet providers • Ensures that internet providers can only disconnect their users in a very limited set of circumstances (i.e. fraud or lack of payment of their bills)

26. Sumário • A União Européia e suas instituições • Neutralidade de Rede na UE – situação atual • Neutralidade de Rede na UE – próximos passos

27. Main issues to be addressed • The European Commission, together with the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC), is looking into the following issues raised in the course of the public consultation process: • Barriers to switching (e.g. after how long a costumer is permitted to break a post-paid contract and what are the penalties, if any) • Practices of blocking, throttling and commercial practices with equivalent effect • Transparency • Quality of service • Competition issues relating to net neutrality (e.g. discriminatory practices by a dominant player)

28. The way forward (I) • The European Commission will publish by the end of this year the evidence that will come to light from BEREC’s investigations • including any instance of blocking or throttling certain types of traffic • On the basis of this evidence and the implementation of the EU regulatory framework provisions, the Commission will decide on the issue of additional measures on net neutrality • Such additional measures may take the form of guidance or general legislative measures to enhance competition and consumer choice • e.g. by imposing specific obligations regarding unjustified traffic differentiation on the internet applicable to all ISPs irrespective of market power (which could include the prohibition of the blocking of lawful services)

29. The way forward (II) • Any additional regulation should: • Avoid deterring investment or innovative business models • Lead to a more efficient use of the networks and to creating new business opportunities at different levels of the internet value chain • Preserve for consumers the advantages of a choice of internet access products tailored to their needs • In parallel, the European Commission will continue its dialogue with EU Member States and stakeholders to ensure the rapid development of broadband • which would reduce the pressure on data traffic

30. Para mais informação … • Agenda Digital Européia • http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/digital-agenda/index_en.htm • Políticas da União Européia na área das TIC • http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/tl/policy/index_en.htm • Quadro Regulamentar da União Européia • http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/policy/ecomm/tomorrow/index_en.htm Paulo.Lopes@eeas.europa.eu