Return to Video

Thomas Lohninger: Net Neutrality in Europe

  • 0:00 - 0:10
    preroll music
  • 0:10 - 0:14
    Herald: Actually, we have two
    consecutive talks of half an hour.
  • 0:14 - 0:18
    And as they’re both on the
    same more-or-less topic
  • 0:18 - 0:22
    we’ve decided to junk
    them. One is right now,
  • 0:22 - 0:26
    that’s Thomas Lohninger from
    Austria, my home country.
  • 0:26 - 0:30
    And the next one is Fredy
    Kuenzler from Switzerland.
  • 0:30 - 0:33
    And they’re both talking about the same
    problem. You know the old Churchill
  • 0:33 - 0:36
    saying: “There’s two things you
    don’t wanna know exactly, that’s
  • 0:36 - 0:42
    how do they make sausages,
    and how do they make laws?”.
  • 0:42 - 0:47
    Well, actually, you do wanna know
    exactly how they make laws!
  • 0:47 - 0:50
    Otherwise you find yourself
    with a law you don’t want.
  • 0:50 - 0:53
    And a sarco enemy can avoid a banger,
    but you can’t avoid a law.
  • 0:53 - 0:58
    So Thomas here is gonna tell you
    about the fight for net neutrality
  • 0:58 - 1:02
    in Europe. And let’s have a big
    hand for Thomas Lohninger!
  • 1:02 - 1:11
    applause
  • 1:11 - 1:14
    Thomas: Hello and thank you,
    everybody! Good.
  • 1:14 - 1:18
    So, let’s dive right in. We have a lot of
    ground to cover for the past 3 years
  • 1:18 - 1:22
    which have to fit in the next 30 minutes.
    So I’m gonna talk fast at the end,
  • 1:22 - 1:25
    so that we have a little bit more
    time for the outlook in the future.
  • 1:25 - 1:30
    The subtitle of this talk is ‘Alea iacta
    est’, so ‘the dices have fallen’
  • 1:30 - 1:34
    which in fact is not really true.
    We now have legislation
  • 1:34 - 1:38
    in Europe for the first time, binding
    legislation for net neutrality
  • 1:38 - 1:42
    in all 28 member states. And this
    talk will be about the history
  • 1:42 - 1:47
    of this legislation and how civil society
    played a huge role in this law.
  • 1:47 - 1:49
    But still the law that we have
    now is really ambiguous;
  • 1:49 - 1:53
    so the fight is not over. There are next
    steps to come which will actually give it
  • 1:53 - 1:58
    real meaning, and influence what net
    neutrality we’ll actually have in Europe.
  • 1:58 - 2:03
    A little bit of introduction: So,
    net neutrality in principle is
  • 2:03 - 2:07
    the universality of the network.
    As you see here
  • 2:07 - 2:10
    we’re all interconnected
    over the network and…
  • 2:10 - 2:15
    the basic foundational principles
    that boil down in these days
  • 2:15 - 2:19
    – in the age of deep packet inspection
    and discriminatory pricing –
  • 2:19 - 2:23
    net neutrality boils down to
    discrimination protection.
  • 2:23 - 2:26
    And it’s basically preventing
    ISPs to establish
  • 2:26 - 2:30
    new discriminatory business models.
    This was also the starting point
  • 2:30 - 2:34
    for this European legislation called
    ‘Telecom Civil Market’. It’s a regulation;
  • 2:34 - 2:38
    that means it’s directly applicable
    in all 28 member states,
  • 2:38 - 2:42
    not like a directive. It doesn’t have to
    be transposed to national legislation,
  • 2:42 - 2:46
    it’s already a law in all 28 countries.
  • 2:46 - 2:51
    And the responsible commissioner, back in
    September 2013, when it was introduced,
  • 2:51 - 2:54
    is this old lady, Neelie Kroes.
    Audio/Video playback starts
  • 2:54 - 2:59
    Neelie Kroes: It is a fact that we are all
    connected or we want to be connected.
  • 2:59 - 3:04
    So this package is essential for
    Europe’s strategic interests,
  • 3:04 - 3:10
    for Europe’s economic progress.
    It is absolutely crucial
  • 3:10 - 3:14
    for the telecom sector itself.
    And, of course, for citizens
  • 3:14 - 3:19
    who need full and fair access
    to telecom services such as
  • 3:19 - 3:24
    internet, and such as mobile services.
    Audio/Video playback stops
  • 3:24 - 3:28
    Thomas: “Such as internet”…
    This is also the spirit of this whole law.
  • 3:28 - 3:33
    You have internet, which is kind of
    neutral, and then you have other stuff.
  • 3:33 - 3:36
    Like specialized services, which you
    could basically translate in your head to
  • 3:36 - 3:40
    ‘net neutrality violation’, or ‘paid
    fast lanes’. And if you look
  • 3:40 - 3:43
    at the original Commission proposal,
    which they put in front of us, they had
  • 3:43 - 3:48
    really weird language, like “within
    the contract that you enter into
  • 3:48 - 3:52
    with your ISP you’re not allowed to
    discriminate”. But if the contract states
  • 3:52 - 3:55
    that you have discriminatory pricing,
    or different speeds for different types
  • 3:55 - 4:00
    of applications that would be legal, under
    the original Commission proposal.
  • 4:00 - 4:04
    The Commission had a 3-fold
    strategy: It used the election
  • 4:04 - 4:09
    to get the Parliament to adopt
    this regulation really fast,
  • 4:09 - 4:13
    to put it in a hurry, to rush this
    thing through before the elections
  • 4:13 - 4:19
    in May 2014. It used a populist
    element which was roaming.
  • 4:19 - 4:23
    If you have heard any coverage about
    this legislation it was probably
  • 4:23 - 4:28
    about the roaming part. That Europe
    would abolish roaming charges
  • 4:28 - 4:32
    which was actually kind of a fuzzy deal.
    You will still have Roaming charges
  • 4:32 - 4:36
    but you will have different names and
    different forms. But that was something
  • 4:36 - 4:40
    which made it essential for all
    MEPs, for all parliamentarians
  • 4:40 - 4:44
    in the European Parliament to
    pass this legislation really fast.
  • 4:44 - 4:48
    And they used bizarre and complex
    language as you’ve just seen:
  • 4:48 - 4:51
    the whole regulation was full of that.
    And the fourth point is
  • 4:51 - 4:55
    that in their language, in the PR
    strategy, they were always claiming
  • 4:55 - 4:59
    to support net neutrality. We see the
    same thing with Guenther Oettinger now,
  • 4:59 - 5:04
    the successor of Neelie Kroes, he’s also
    saying that he supports net neutrality,
  • 5:04 - 5:07
    but in fact he’s doing the opposite.
  • 5:07 - 5:11
    So what have we done, once this
    regulation was in front of us?
  • 5:11 - 5:15
    We started to write amendments
    in a wiki. Actually it took us
  • 5:15 - 5:19
    only a month to come up with
    the first improvements for this text.
  • 5:19 - 5:23
    And I also said that I wanted
    to give some ‘lessons-learned’.
  • 5:23 - 5:29
    The first lesson-to-learn if you want to
    influence European policy is: Come early!
  • 5:29 - 5:32
    The earlier you are on the table, the
    earlier you start talking with officials
  • 5:32 - 5:36
    about a subject the more influence
    you will have on the process. So
  • 5:36 - 5:40
    if you want to influence legislation don’t
    look what is in the calendar next month
  • 5:40 - 5:45
    – look what is in the calendar in 3 years.
    Then you have a good chance
  • 5:45 - 5:50
    to really make a difference. And we
    had the ‘savetheinternet’ campaign
  • 5:50 - 5:54
    which was actually launched here
    on that stage, 3 years ago.
  • 5:54 - 6:00
    And the talk with Markus
    Beckedahl at 30C3.
  • 6:00 - 6:06
    And the website basically
    followed a simple idea.
  • 6:06 - 6:11
    Translate attention into political force.
    Give people something to do.
  • 6:11 - 6:14
    And provide actionable items – it’s the
    second lesson that you can take away
  • 6:14 - 6:18
    from that. You have to give
    people something to do.
  • 6:18 - 6:20
    Otherwise they will not care about
    the subject. Otherwise they will
  • 6:20 - 6:24
    not get really involved.
    They will not feel like they have
  • 6:24 - 6:28
    a part in whatever political
    issue you wanna raise.
  • 6:28 - 6:31
    And emboss these
    actionable items actually;
  • 6:31 - 6:36
    translate the attention and the will
    of the citizens into something
  • 6:36 - 6:39
    that’s in front of the officials,
    in front of the parliamentarians.
  • 6:39 - 6:44
    In our case: calls, faxes,
    tweets and emails.
  • 6:44 - 6:47
    These were our actionable items; and
  • 6:47 - 6:52
    here I also want to thank Michael
    Bauer who was the core developer
  • 6:52 - 6:55
    of all the contact-your-MEP
    tools of savetheinternet
  • 6:55 - 7:00
    besides the Pi phone from
    laquadraturedenet who sadly deceased
  • 7:00 - 7:03
    with a heart attack this year. And…
  • 7:03 - 7:08
    applause
  • 7:08 - 7:12
    But without him we never would
    have made it in such a good time.
  • 7:12 - 7:15
    He developed the whole contact
    suite in like a week or so.
  • 7:15 - 7:21
    He was a really brilliant person.
    So the fax thing was really cool.
  • 7:21 - 7:25
    We sent around 40,000 faxes to the
    parliament[arian]s, 20,000 of which
  • 7:25 - 7:31
    were already also received by them. Here
    again, I want to thank the ISP Kappa
  • 7:31 - 7:35
    who sponsored us all those faxes
    for free, for the first round.
  • 7:35 - 7:38
    We didn’t have to pay for any of them.
  • 7:38 - 7:44
    So third lesson is: be creative.
    So faxes were a novel thing,
  • 7:44 - 7:48
    It wasn’t done any time before.
    And so they were really influential
  • 7:48 - 7:52
    because suddenly you would have
    a physical token of a citizen’s will
  • 7:52 - 7:57
    in the office of the parliamentarian. But
    like every creative campaigning idea
  • 7:57 - 8:00
    only works once or twice now the
    Parliament has switched to
  • 8:00 - 8:04
    an electronic fax delivery.
    So this idea no longer works.
  • 8:04 - 8:09
    At least not so efficiently.
    So you have to adopt fast.
  • 8:09 - 8:13
    This is the process in the
    European Parliament.
  • 8:13 - 8:16
    You have these several committees
    which all adopt their opinions
  • 8:16 - 8:21
    on the legislation. And then the whole
    thing goes into the leading committee
  • 8:21 - 8:24
    – the Industry Committee in this
    case. And then to plenary.
  • 8:24 - 8:27
    Here I wanna thank Petra Kammerevert,
    German Social Democrat.
  • 8:27 - 8:32
    It was like the only MEP that sticked with
    us, from the beginning to the end.
  • 8:32 - 8:36
    She was really fighting like hell.
    And she was one of the good guys.
  • 8:36 - 8:39
    One of the bad guys is [Vera] Pilar del
    Castillo, the Rapporteur down there,
  • 8:39 - 8:43
    in the ITRE committee. As
    a Rapporteur she has a lot of power
  • 8:43 - 8:47
    over the process of this legislation
    in Europe. And she was really
  • 8:47 - 8:51
    working against us wherever she could.
    And also working against the opinion
  • 8:51 - 8:56
    of the European Parliament. So she was not
    really negotiating to get the good deal
  • 8:56 - 9:00
    that the parliament adopted in plenary
    in first reading. She was really working
  • 9:00 - 9:05
    to get what the telcos and Telefonica
    are wanting. And so in the plenary
  • 9:05 - 9:09
    we actually managed to get amendments
    through. Before that, it looked quite grim
  • 9:09 - 9:14
    but we had those amendments
    which got a majority
  • 9:14 - 9:18
    and which brought us the victory.
    Because this legislation is now passed
  • 9:18 - 9:22
    and published in the journal, I’m now
    also at liberty to speak a little bit more
  • 9:22 - 9:27
    about what is the background
    of it. And actually,
  • 9:27 - 9:34
    as you have here in this email
    from a UK Social Democrat,
  • 9:34 - 9:39
    the text came from civil society,
    which in fact is true.
  • 9:39 - 9:45
    When we drafted this text there were
    like 3 things that we had to do.
  • 9:45 - 9:49
    We had to fix all loop holes. We had
    to change as little as necessary,
  • 9:49 - 9:53
    so only minor text changes.
    Every word is costly.
  • 9:53 - 9:57
    And we couldn’t use any politically
    loaded phrases. So we had to come up
  • 9:57 - 10:02
    with totally new language. Which
    would solve all problems but still
  • 10:02 - 10:07
    get a majority which in fact
    we managed to achieve.
  • 10:07 - 10:16
    There was also a bigger majority…
    applause
  • 10:16 - 10:20
    So that’s us celebrating
    after the victory. And…
  • 10:20 - 10:25
    that was big fun. So fourth lesson
  • 10:25 - 10:29
    to take away is: Be clear about
    your demands with politicians.
  • 10:29 - 10:33
    You will not succeed in asking
    for stuff that you will not…
  • 10:33 - 10:36
    that is impossible for the politician.
    You have to ask for something
  • 10:36 - 10:40
    which is realistic. And in their eyes
    getting a good text in first reading
  • 10:40 - 10:45
    was realistic. But there were many
    formality arguments in second reading.
  • 10:45 - 10:49
    Which worked against us, and
    at the end broke our necks.
  • 10:49 - 10:53
    One was that the parliament is
    not really emancipated from
  • 10:53 - 10:57
    the other institutions. Council has much
    more power. So the member states
  • 10:57 - 11:02
    really can make demands and draw red lines
    that the parliament is not really willing
  • 11:02 - 11:07
    to step over. And ‘second reading’ also
    means that you need an absolute majority
  • 11:07 - 11:12
    for any amendment. Not just a simple
    majority. So half of all MEPs
  • 11:12 - 11:16
    and not just those who
    are present at the vote.
  • 11:16 - 11:20
    But it’s not all just the first reading:
    here you have a basic idea of
  • 11:20 - 11:25
    how laws are adopted in the European
    Union. With the Commission on top,
  • 11:25 - 11:30
    the Parliament at the left and the member
    states in the Council on the right.
  • 11:30 - 11:34
    And we had savetheinternet
    campaigns for all of those steps.
  • 11:34 - 11:37
    And basically when the Commission adopted
    their proposal that was of course
  • 11:37 - 11:41
    anti net neutrality at its best.
    The Parliament fixed it,
  • 11:41 - 11:46
    the Council reverted it and really came
    up with a text that was partly even worse
  • 11:46 - 11:49
    than what the Commission
    originally wanted.
  • 11:49 - 11:55
    And then those 3 institutions sat
    together in the most intransparent way
  • 11:55 - 12:01
    you could imagine… and came
    together and made a new text.
  • 12:01 - 12:05
    And the agreement here, in trialub (?),
    that was actually reached
  • 12:05 - 12:09
    at 2 AM with everybody almost
    asleep, everybody like:
  • 12:09 - 12:14
    “Okay, let’s fix this, let’s fix this…”.
    And the Liberals,
  • 12:14 - 12:18
    the Greens, the Left, all of them were
    already out of the room. They were saying:
  • 12:18 - 12:22
    “Okay, no deal, we’ll continue
    after the summer break,
  • 12:22 - 12:26
    let’s just not continue any
    more discussion!” And then
  • 12:26 - 12:30
    the negotiator from the Social Democrats,
    Patricia Toia, she was already standing
  • 12:30 - 12:34
    in the doorway with her
    handbag in her hand.
  • 12:34 - 12:37
    And then she agreed to this proposal.
  • 12:37 - 12:41
    Because the Conservatives gave her some
    concessions on Roaming, then she agreed,
  • 12:41 - 12:45
    to the shitty net neutrality. So that’s
    it actually what it boils down to,
  • 12:45 - 12:50
    at some stages. And it was [Pilar del]
    Castillo who was driving this compromise.
  • 12:50 - 12:53
    So we had a really bad text
    which was on the table.
  • 12:53 - 12:57
    And agreed between all 3 institutions.
    But then it would still need
  • 12:57 - 13:01
    to go through Parliament.
    And we had to ask ourselves
  • 13:01 - 13:04
    over the summer break: “Is this text
    worse than useless?” Should we really
  • 13:04 - 13:08
    fight for amendments, or
    should we fight for deletion?
  • 13:08 - 13:13
    This was a huge argument
    within the savetheinternet coalition.
  • 13:13 - 13:17
    And even I was sympathetic
    with both sides.
  • 13:17 - 13:20
    But at the end we thought
    this text is better than
  • 13:20 - 13:24
    e.g. what the US had in their first
    net neutrality law. And therefor
  • 13:24 - 13:28
    it’s worth fighting. Because maybe there
    are countries, like Austria, like Germany,
  • 13:28 - 13:32
    like the Netherlands that have or
    would adopt good legislation.
  • 13:32 - 13:36
    But many other countries would not.
    And so, in the sense of the European Union
  • 13:36 - 13:42
    we thought: “Better have this compromise
    for 28 instead of just a few good laws.”
  • 13:42 - 13:45
    And then something really magical
    happened. Because finally we got support
  • 13:45 - 13:49
    from the US. We had Barbara van
    Schewick, the world’s leading expert
  • 13:49 - 13:53
    and scientist on net neutrality
    speaking out in support for us.
  • 13:53 - 13:57
    So did Lawrence Lessig, so
    did Sir Tim Berners-Lee, and
  • 13:57 - 14:01
    many other supporters. And we also had
    companies getting involved, start-ups
  • 14:01 - 14:06
    and big internet companies like Wordpress.
    And we also had venture capitalists
  • 14:06 - 14:10
    that urged the parliamentarians to
    really adopt these amendments,
  • 14:10 - 14:13
    make this a clear legislation. Because
    otherwise they would stop investing
  • 14:13 - 14:19
    into European start-ups. Because I would
    not get money into a business model
  • 14:19 - 14:23
    which might not work in a few months.
  • 14:23 - 14:27
    And also in Germany we had big
    support from the media authorities,
  • 14:27 - 14:31
    the Landesmedienanstalten, and the
    Association of German Journalists.
  • 14:31 - 14:35
    Many others. But really, what we
    didn’t do here, we didn’t come early.
  • 14:35 - 14:39
    This was all a last-minute action. The
    real traction this whole thing gained
  • 14:39 - 14:43
    one week before the final vote!
    And that was too late.
  • 14:43 - 14:46
    If we could have had this traction,
    this media coverage beforehand
  • 14:46 - 14:51
    then it might have turned out differently.
    But what you can take away from that is
  • 14:51 - 14:55
    that we have to broaden our movement.
    That we really have to go
  • 14:55 - 14:59
    out of the net political nerd bubble.
    We have to reach other people.
  • 14:59 - 15:03
    Digital rights issues are
    broad civil society issues.
  • 15:03 - 15:07
    And we have to treat them as such.
    Go to the churches. Go to the journalists.
  • 15:07 - 15:12
    Go to whomever is willing to listen, and
    make your cause, and broaden the movement.
  • 15:12 - 15:16
    And we had really creative
    actions like here in Barcelona.
  • 15:16 - 15:22
    Our member Xnet had this nice projection
    on the building of Telefonica.
  • 15:22 - 15:26
    But at the end it didn’t work. We
    failed in Second Reading. And I have
  • 15:26 - 15:31
    to speed up a little bit and explain you
    why this is not the end of net neutrality.
  • 15:31 - 15:36
    I know this was in the media quite
    heavily. And if you look at it binarily,
  • 15:36 - 15:39
    of course this is a loss for us because
    we campaigned for amendments
  • 15:39 - 15:43
    and we did not succeed. But still
    the text it’s now on the table.
  • 15:43 - 15:45
    The biggest problem
    is that it’s ambiguous.
  • 15:45 - 15:50
    But it has some good parts in it. And one
    word of advice: you have to keep in mind
  • 15:50 - 15:53
    that the US also needed two
    approaches to get this right.
  • 15:53 - 15:58
    The first net neutrality laws were
    even worse than what we have now.
  • 15:58 - 16:01
    There is clarity that this is now
    applicable – not only to fixed line
  • 16:01 - 16:06
    but also to mobile internet. And at least
    we’ll see no longer commercial blocking
  • 16:06 - 16:10
    in Europe. You could still have state
    blocking, so like censorship lists
  • 16:10 - 16:14
    from any public authority. But
    you could not e.g. block Skype
  • 16:14 - 16:20
    if you are a mobile operator and want
    people corner into using your own roaming.
  • 16:20 - 16:24
    There is intentional ambiguity, and all
    the big questions about net neutrality and
  • 16:24 - 16:29
    paid fast lanes. And so the real decision
    is now left to the unelected regulators.
  • 16:29 - 16:34
    And to the unelected judges. We
    most certainly expect court cases
  • 16:34 - 16:38
    in front of the European High Court.
    And this means huge legal uncertainty.
  • 16:38 - 16:44
    Which is really bad. Not only for
    citizens but also for business.
  • 16:44 - 16:50
    So there are 4 big subjects
    we have to cover.
  • 16:50 - 16:54
    That are still in the debate now with the
    European regulator that’s now tasked with
  • 16:54 - 16:59
    giving this law actual meaning.
    Specialized services…
  • 16:59 - 17:03
    as I said you could translate it in
    your head with ‘paid fast lanes’
  • 17:03 - 17:07
    and ‘not net neutrality’ or with ‘those
    services that really have nothing to do
  • 17:07 - 17:11
    with the internet’. That has to be our
    goal here. There are 5 safeguards
  • 17:11 - 17:16
    in the regulation that we have to apply
    right and then we can still achieve
  • 17:16 - 17:22
    that goal. But the regulators… like
    these are the 28 organizations
  • 17:22 - 17:26
    in Europe that are tasked with
    regulating the telecom markets.
  • 17:26 - 17:30
    They are not doing anything else than
    reading laws and applying them
  • 17:30 - 17:34
    on the market. And that’s one of the
    questions they asked us in the hearing.
  • 17:34 - 17:39
    So would it be okay to have internet
    services as specialized services?
  • 17:39 - 17:43
    And you can see how really vague and
    ambiguous this law is, if this is
  • 17:43 - 17:48
    the basic question that they’re asking us.
    Similarly with zero rating, the practice
  • 17:48 - 17:52
    of commercial discrimination. If some
    data packages cost more than others.
  • 17:52 - 17:56
    Again, we have some sort
    of safeguard here.
  • 17:56 - 18:01
    But ‘commercial practices’ is the corner
    word here. Because zero rating
  • 18:01 - 18:05
    is not mentioned in the whole legislation.
    ‘Commercial practices’ – and that’s
  • 18:05 - 18:09
    the funny part. They’re asking us
    – the regulators asking civil society –
  • 18:09 - 18:14
    what in our understanding ‘commercial
    practices’ actually means. And
  • 18:14 - 18:18
    from our perspective there are 2 ways of
    seeing it. Either it means ‘zero rating’
  • 18:18 - 18:22
    in which case it has to be prohibited. Or
    it means anything else in which case
  • 18:22 - 18:30
    e.g. it could mean ‘interconnection’.
    That applies perfectly to the legislation.
  • 18:30 - 18:35
    But in that case this whole topic would
    be left for national legislation.
  • 18:35 - 18:40
    So the Dutch net neutrality law
    could still outlaw zero rating,
  • 18:40 - 18:44
    or Germany could adopt a new law
    which would prohibit that practice.
  • 18:44 - 18:49
    A very important point which was
    sadly not so much discussed
  • 18:49 - 18:53
    is traffic management. There is
    a risk that ISPs could introduce
  • 18:53 - 18:59
    a class based CIF system to manage
    congestion, e.g. That would look like:
  • 18:59 - 19:02
    “Okay, we have all video streaming
    applications in one class
  • 19:02 - 19:08
    and we prioritize them. But we don’t
    prioritize telephony applications,
  • 19:08 - 19:12
    because although they also are
    delay-sensitive they are
  • 19:12 - 19:16
    against our own business models, and
    therefor we are not prioritizing them.”
  • 19:16 - 19:20
    Class-based traffic management has another
    big problem. And you can look at the UK
  • 19:20 - 19:27
    where this is a common practice.
    If you want to throttle file-sharing
  • 19:27 - 19:31
    and you have some gaming applications
    that look similar like file-sharing
  • 19:31 - 19:34
    you could end up with
    throttled gaming applications
  • 19:34 - 19:39
    which make the games unusable.
    And so in the UK you have now
  • 19:39 - 19:44
    standing committees between game
    developers and ISPs like Plusnet
  • 19:44 - 19:48
    and before they have a rollout of a new
    game they have to sit down and agree
  • 19:48 - 19:51
    on the technical characteristics,
    so that the game actually works
  • 19:51 - 19:55
    in the British internet. And this is
    the total opposite of innovation
  • 19:55 - 19:59
    without permission.
    And from our understanding
  • 19:59 - 20:04
    traffic management always has to be
    as application agnostic as possible.
  • 20:04 - 20:08
    So: only look at the header, don’t
    look in the contents of the package,
  • 20:08 - 20:14
    don’t make any differentiation
    between applications or services.
  • 20:14 - 20:17
    And there’s also a problem: If you
    look at the content, if you want
  • 20:17 - 20:21
    to treat encrypted traffic differently
    there is a risk that all encrypted traffic
  • 20:21 - 20:29
    could end up in the slow lane.
  • 20:29 - 20:33
    In principle this is what we want to
    achieve. Be as application agnostic
  • 20:33 - 20:37
    as possible and then only allow
    traffic management based
  • 20:37 - 20:41
    on technical characteristics where it is
    really necessary and proportionate
  • 20:41 - 20:44
    and you cannot solve the problem
    in any other way. And then only
  • 20:44 - 20:50
    if this is not sufficient you could
    resert to a class-based system.
  • 20:50 - 20:54
    Transparency – we will see
    some big change here
  • 20:54 - 20:58
    when it comes to advertised
    and real speeds of internet.
  • 20:58 - 21:01
    So if this regulation enters into force
    and if the transparency provisions
  • 21:01 - 21:05
    are applied correctly you will no
    longer have just up to a certain
  • 21:05 - 21:09
    Megabyte [per second] of internet; instead
    you will have a minimum, an average
  • 21:09 - 21:12
    and a maximum bandwidth which
    has to be stated in the contract. So
  • 21:12 - 21:17
    more accurate information
    for consumers. Now,
  • 21:17 - 21:21
    this is the organization that is now
    tasked with making actual sense
  • 21:21 - 21:27
    out of this legislation. So this is the
    umbrella of all 28 regulatory authorities
  • 21:27 - 21:32
    in Europe. Like Bundesnetzagentur
    in Germany, or RTR in Austria.
  • 21:32 - 21:36
    All those come together under
    the umbrella of BEREC; and
  • 21:36 - 21:40
    they now have until the end of
    august, according to the regulation,
  • 21:40 - 21:44
    to come up with actual guidelines
    that give this text real meaning.
  • 21:44 - 21:48
    And if we look at the timeline this
    is basically our work programme
  • 21:48 - 21:51
    which we’ll have to fill with life.
  • 21:51 - 21:54
    The parliament adopted the
    regulation in October; and
  • 21:54 - 21:58
    it was published in the journal on
    November 26 which gives us the 9 months
  • 21:58 - 22:03
    of time we now have. And there
    was a stakeholder hearing
  • 22:03 - 22:07
    from civil society; I could
    participate for EDRI; and
  • 22:07 - 22:11
    we basically sat down with the regulators
    and gave them our interpretation
  • 22:11 - 22:15
    of the text. But just so did also the
    content application providers
  • 22:15 - 22:19
    like the public broadcasters,
    or internet companies;
  • 22:19 - 22:22
    and so did the telecom industry. So
    now they have to strike a balance
  • 22:22 - 22:26
    between those 3 stakeholder groups.
  • 22:26 - 22:31
    We’re now at a point where the working
    groups are drafting the guidelines.
  • 22:31 - 22:35
    Really weird fact: the whole
    regulation will enter into force
  • 22:35 - 22:39
    at the end of April. Although the
    guidelines are not applicable there.
  • 22:39 - 22:41
    And nobody could answer the
    question what this actually means
  • 22:41 - 22:47
    if there would be a case, in this
    period between April and August.
  • 22:47 - 22:51
    So this working draft will
    then be voted in plenary
  • 22:51 - 22:54
    at the end of June, and then we’ll
    have 20 days of public consultation.
  • 22:54 - 22:58
    You’ll have 20 days to say
    what you think about
  • 22:58 - 23:02
    the new net neutrality in Europe.
    Which is ridiculous. And then they have
  • 23:02 - 23:07
    roughly a little bit less than two months
    to analyze all this feedback,
  • 23:07 - 23:10
    and to redraft the guidelines.
    So the more feedback they receive
  • 23:10 - 23:15
    the fewer time they’ll have to actually
    redraft the whole thing before it’s
  • 23:15 - 23:18
    finally voted in the extraordinary
    plenary within BEREC.
  • 23:18 - 23:24
    So that it can be published.
    So let’s focus on those 20 days.
  • 23:24 - 23:29
    In the US we had several months of
    consultation and 4 Mio. comments.
  • 23:29 - 23:34
    In India it was 28 days.
    Still 1 Mio. comments.
  • 23:34 - 23:37
    And they are continuing. They all have
    another consultation up and running
  • 23:37 - 23:41
    right now. And now in
    Europe we have 20 days.
  • 23:41 - 23:44
    So this is the comparison that we face.
  • 23:44 - 23:48
    And this also means for European
    civil society and all those people
  • 23:48 - 23:52
    who care about the internet – this is the
    time line, and this is the opportunity
  • 23:52 - 23:56
    that we have. We can look at the US.
  • 23:56 - 24:01
    This is an analysis of the comments
    that were given to the FCC
  • 24:01 - 24:04
    when they first asked for
    opinions about net neutrality.
  • 24:04 - 24:11
    And there is now a huge collection
    of scientific papers,
  • 24:11 - 24:15
    visualizations and everything
    about this huge record
  • 24:15 - 24:19
    about the topic of net neutrality.
    So you can see that there are
  • 24:19 - 24:22
    so many issues that – also organically –
    that people commented [on].
  • 24:22 - 24:27
    You have very few templates in here.
    So out of these 4 Mio. comments
  • 24:27 - 24:32
    many of them are actually people sitting
    down, writing in their own words
  • 24:32 - 24:35
    what they think about the subject.
    How it would influence their business.
  • 24:35 - 24:39
    How it would influence their education.
    How it would influence the network
  • 24:39 - 24:43
    that they are running. And you
    have many interesting stuff like
  • 24:43 - 24:48
    “you need net neutrality
    for the American Dream”.
  • 24:48 - 24:52
    And the idea behind that is also a
    “maybe we can take some advice
  • 24:52 - 24:56
    from the US, here, for Europe”.
    That America is America
  • 24:56 - 25:01
    because you can connect to different
    opinions. At the core of net neutrality
  • 25:01 - 25:05
    you have the equality of the network.
    And this was preserved here
  • 25:05 - 25:10
    with the new rules in the US; and we
    should really take advice on that.
  • 25:10 - 25:14
    And that’s also why we as
    savetheinternet coalition
  • 25:14 - 25:17
    will come up with a new version
    of the website. That will
  • 25:17 - 25:21
    support the consultation and
    extend it, not just in the 20 days
  • 25:21 - 25:26
    but for a longer time period. So that
    more of you have the opportunity
  • 25:26 - 25:29
    to have an actionable item, to do
    something for this legislation.
  • 25:29 - 25:34
    And to really have your say.
  • 25:34 - 25:38
    In the remaining time I would like
    to step a little bit out of Europe
  • 25:38 - 25:42
    and follow the motto
    of this year’s Congress,
  • 25:42 - 25:48
    and look a bit at the global issue.
  • 25:48 - 25:52
    You see now there’s… many
    legislation are actually discussed
  • 25:52 - 25:56
    or already in place. It varies greatly
    in the amount of safeguard
  • 25:56 - 26:03
    that it provides for citizens. And thanks
    to Andre Meister from netzpolitik.org
  • 26:03 - 26:06
    we have a little collection of all the
    billboards and advertisements
  • 26:06 - 26:11
    in Latin America about zero rating.
    So let’s have a look how this is
  • 26:11 - 26:15
    seen in Peru, in Chile and other
    countries. You have here
  • 26:15 - 26:18
    free social networking which
    is huge advertisement donors.
  • 26:18 - 26:24
    And you have full internet
    with this websites.
  • 26:24 - 26:28
    And we’re not speaking about nerdy stuff.
    This is like a selling proposition,
  • 26:28 - 26:34
    that you can have these services for free,
    therefor buy my SIMCard, buy my internet.
  • 26:34 - 26:37
    And it goes on and on like that. But it
  • 26:37 - 26:42
    gets really ugly if you look at
    what’s happening in India right now.
  • 26:42 - 26:45
    Facebook has this program called
    internet.org which is basically
  • 26:45 - 26:50
    a gated community which gives
    poor people without any access
  • 26:50 - 26:55
    to the internet just access to
    Facebook and a few other sites.
  • 26:55 - 26:59
    And Facebook is now on the
    offensive. They are asking citizens
  • 26:59 - 27:03
    to lobby the regulator
    against net neutrality.
  • 27:03 - 27:07
    They’re really challenged in that, and
    you could see that Facebook was
  • 27:07 - 27:11
    fast responding because
    the public pressure in India
  • 27:11 - 27:16
    amounted to companies, and
    telecom actors and also politicians
  • 27:16 - 27:21
    publicly denouncing this
    program. I can only quote
  • 27:21 - 27:26
    one of the founders of
    savetheinternet.in, Nikhil Baba.
  • 27:26 - 27:30
    He said yesterday that the only question
    that he would ask Mark Zuckerberg
  • 27:30 - 27:35
    who is always on the forefront
    to defend his program:
  • 27:35 - 27:39
    “Why is he just giving
    these free basic services
  • 27:39 - 27:42
    with just a few selected hundred sites
  • 27:42 - 27:46
    instead of giving them the whole
    access to the internet?”. If you give
  • 27:46 - 27:50
    the bandwidth that’s reserved for these
    programs just freely to everybody
  • 27:50 - 27:54
    so that they can use them in whatever
    way they want you would achieve
  • 27:54 - 27:59
    exactly the same commercial
    interest for the telecom providers.
  • 27:59 - 28:04
    And there are similar programs from
    Mozilla and also from other Indian ISPs
  • 28:04 - 28:09
    that just give people 3 months
    of a few megabytes
  • 28:09 - 28:12
    to get them hooked on the
    internet. If this is just the idea
  • 28:12 - 28:17
    to bridge the digital gap by getting
    people some sense of our internet
  • 28:17 - 28:21
    that could be easily done by that way.
  • 28:21 - 28:25
    We have to look at the challenges for
    the global net neutrality movement.
  • 28:25 - 28:30
    This issue is far from just
    a Western debate right now.
  • 28:30 - 28:34
    And we always have been wondering in the
    Digital Rights movement how it would be
  • 28:34 - 28:38
    if Google or Facebook would be
    on the other side of our debate.
  • 28:38 - 28:42
    If they really would fight against us.
    We can look at the global south.
  • 28:42 - 28:45
    It’s first happening there. So
  • 28:45 - 28:49
    that’s the end of my talk and also
    my time. I want to thank you.
  • 28:49 - 28:53
    I want to urge you to keep fighting;
    net neutrality is not lost in Europe.
  • 28:53 - 28:56
    It’s more like we now have
    a really ambiguous law.
  • 28:56 - 29:01
    The responsibility lies now with the
    regulators. So we are in a way
  • 29:01 - 29:05
    at a point where the US was in 2014. And
    now we have to do a similar mobilization.
  • 29:05 - 29:10
    We have to do a similar form
    of argumentation to get it right.
  • 29:10 - 29:16
    And savetheinternet is
    a coalition of 12 NGOs,
  • 29:16 - 29:21
    and we don’t have one fixed hub, but
    there is a lot of development going on
  • 29:21 - 29:26
    in Austria. And we’ll also have a workshop
    today at 6 PM at the EDRI assembly
  • 29:26 - 29:31
    at Noisy Square. If you want to get
    involved, if you have a special interest,
  • 29:31 - 29:37
    a business, or are an ISP, then
    please participate in this workshop
  • 29:37 - 29:40
    to get the new savetheinternet
    as best as we can. Thank you!
  • 29:40 - 29:52
    applause
  • 29:52 - 29:55
    Herald: Okay, we gonna do something
    unorthodox today. We gonna have
  • 29:55 - 29:59
    the next talk right onto this one.
    Please – flying change of people
  • 29:59 - 30:03
    who wanna come and leave! Because
    the two talks are related we’ll have
  • 30:03 - 30:07
    Ten minutes of Q&A after the next talk.
  • 30:07 - 30:11
    So here’s – das ist jetzt eine
    Schwietzer Angelegenheit –
  • 30:11 - 30:15
    this is the gentleman from
    Switzerland, Fredy Kuenzler!
  • 30:15 - 30:18
    Fredy: He speaks Fribourg dialect!
    laughter
  • 30:18 - 30:25
    Can you believe that? Fribourg –
    and pretty good actually!
  • 30:25 - 30:30
    Herald: We both agree that buffering
    sucks, so please, let me have a hand
  • 30:30 - 30:32
    for – Fredy Kuenzler!
    applause
  • 30:32 - 30:41
    applause
  • 30:41 - 30:45
    Fredy Kuenzler: Thank you! My name
    is Fredy Kuenzler. Gruetzi mitanand’!
  • 30:45 - 30:51
    I was thinking whether to have the
    talk in Swiss German or in English…
  • 30:51 - 30:53
    Herald: Sorry, excuse me for a moment -
    Fredy: Never mind.
  • 30:53 - 30:57
    Herald: This is unorthodo… when you
    leave, please leave in peace, and quiet.
  • 30:57 - 31:01
    Okay? And give him a chance.
    Fredy: laughs
  • 31:01 - 31:04
    So Swiss German would be an option for me.
  • 31:04 - 31:11
    English, because you know the
    Swiss don’t speak proper German.
  • 31:11 - 31:19
    My six year old digital native
  • 31:19 - 31:23
    is telling people rather proud that his
    Dad invented the fastest internet
  • 31:23 - 31:27
    in Switzerland. It’s called Fiber7.
  • 31:27 - 31:32
    applause
    Thank you.
  • 31:32 - 31:36
    While we went to Greece for vacation,
    I was in a target conflict,
  • 31:36 - 31:42
    because I had to explain him
    why he couldn’t watch YouTube.
  • 31:42 - 31:47
    I mean Greece, you know
    it’s maybe a bit difficult,
  • 31:47 - 31:52
    but as a matter of fact, here
    in Hamburg it’s not any better.
  • 31:52 - 31:58
    I’m next door in the hotel InterCity
    and they offer “free Wi-Fi”
  • 31:58 - 32:02
    with 256 kbit/s.
    laughter
  • 32:02 - 32:08
    If you want 5 Mbit internet,
    you pay 8 Euros extra,
  • 32:08 - 32:14
    per day. So this is where we are in 2015.
  • 32:14 - 32:18
    A few words about me: I’m
    married, one son as I said.
  • 32:18 - 32:24
    He was born 2009. He was
    able to unlock the iPhone
  • 32:24 - 32:28
    with the age of 17 months.
    No one showed him how.
  • 32:28 - 32:31
    laughter and mumbling
  • 32:31 - 32:35
    My early connection
    with digital techniques
  • 32:35 - 32:42
    was about 1978 when I was
    playing with these chips 7400.
  • 32:42 - 32:47
    Who knows them? Raise
    your hand. – Few, thanks.
  • 32:47 - 32:53
    Later on I did an apprenticeship as a
    Fernmelde- und Elektronikapparatemonteur.
  • 32:53 - 33:00
    And I started to do
    IT business about 1991.
  • 33:00 - 33:05
    Then 1996 – almost 20 years ago –
    we started with Linux stuff.
  • 33:05 - 33:11
    My first Linux was Suse 4.2.
  • 33:11 - 33:15
    In the year 2000 we started with Init7
    and later on I became president
  • 33:15 - 33:20
    of the SwissIX association.
    This is an association
  • 33:20 - 33:26
    which runs an Internet Exchange. I had
    also my time in a startup called Zattoo.
  • 33:26 - 33:31
    It’s a network architecture
    OTT IP Television.
  • 33:31 - 33:36
    Besides, I need a hobby, so I’m also
    a politician for the Social Democrats
  • 33:36 - 33:41
    in my city parliament, already 8 years.
  • 33:41 - 33:46
    Then I started with the other
    hobby, Fiber7 as you know.
  • 33:46 - 33:50
    Oh besides, I was also working
    in an internet expert group
  • 33:50 - 33:55
    of the Social Democrats Switzerland.
    There the internet paper
  • 33:55 - 34:01
    was adopted earlier this month
  • 34:01 - 34:07
    by the national Delegiertenversammlung.
    I don’t know what this is in English.
  • 34:07 - 34:13
    So, Buffering sucks! Ladies and Gentlemen,
    this talk is not about Deutsche Telekom.
  • 34:13 - 34:18
    It’s not about peering. It’s not about
    interconnection. It’s about these
  • 34:18 - 34:25
    thousands and millions of youngsters out
    there which want to watch YouTube
  • 34:25 - 34:29
    in HD resolution without buffering.
  • 34:29 - 34:35
    So let’s quickly look at the reason why
    YouTube and all the other video buffer.
  • 34:35 - 34:41
    It’s usually lack of bandwidth.
    If you have a 2 Meg DSL
  • 34:41 - 34:48
    or if you have an InterCity
    free Wi-Fi with 250 kilobits;
  • 34:48 - 34:55
    so HD video is not possible.
    Sometimes they have old PCs,
  • 34:55 - 34:59
    so CPU power is an issue –
    these days no longer relevant.
  • 34:59 - 35:04
    Wi-Fi quality sucks sometimes.
    This is rather an individual issue.
  • 35:04 - 35:08
    And sometimes we have an over-subscription
  • 35:08 - 35:13
    of the shared node –
    mainly in cable networks.
  • 35:13 - 35:17
    Streaming source can be too far
    away. If you stream from the U.S.,
  • 35:17 - 35:23
    it doesn’t really go well.
    That’s why we have so many CDN,
  • 35:23 - 35:29
    Content Delivery Network systems,
    close to the end users.
  • 35:29 - 35:32
    Then adaptive streaming
    can be an advantage,
  • 35:32 - 35:37
    but also disadvantage. You cannot
    turn it off. When you watch HD
  • 35:37 - 35:42
    and the connection sucks
    you just cannot keep it on HD.
  • 35:42 - 35:48
    It just drops to SD or lower
    resolution. It works, yes.
  • 35:48 - 35:54
    But Claire Underwood in
    low-res is not so cool.
  • 35:54 - 35:59
    Routing algorithm issues – sometimes
    it’s a mismatch of client and server.
  • 35:59 - 36:04
    If your client is assigned to the
    wrong CDN server, then it’s also slow.
  • 36:04 - 36:08
    Anycast routing is a trick sometimes.
    And, last but not least
  • 36:08 - 36:15
    and the most important thing:
    It’s over-subscribed interconnections.
  • 36:15 - 36:20
    We go back quickly to the
    old days. The caller pays.
  • 36:20 - 36:25
    When you call your mother-in-law
    and you talk with her
  • 36:25 - 36:31
    – well, she talks to you for 45 minutes
    and you say hello and goodbye –
  • 36:31 - 36:37
    you still pay the call.
    laughter
  • 36:37 - 36:41
    So with YouTube it’s not any different.
  • 36:41 - 36:47
    You click YouTube and then YouTube
    talks to you for hours maybe
  • 36:47 - 36:52
    and then you say goodbye, basically.
    So is the broadband customer
  • 36:52 - 36:57
    calling the YouTube server or is it vice
    versa? Is the YouTube server calling
  • 36:57 - 37:04
    the broadband customer? Probably
    it’s the broadband customer who calls.
  • 37:04 - 37:09
    But still the data is flowing
    from the server to the client.
  • 37:09 - 37:14
    But the client is causing the traffic,
    because he is requesting the traffic.
  • 37:14 - 37:23
    And if we look at the structure of
    the internet, we have basically…
  • 37:23 - 37:28
    (doesn’t work here, red
    button is dead, never mind!)
  • 37:28 - 37:32
    …we have the end user to the right.
  • 37:32 - 37:35
    We have – here is the provider network
  • 37:35 - 37:41
    and the end user is only connected
    to the provider’s network.
  • 37:41 - 37:46
    On the left side we have all the content
    in the internet. We have the media
  • 37:46 - 37:52
    and video and streaming
    and Torrent and… you name it.
  • 37:52 - 38:00
    But there is always only one
    way going to the end user.
  • 38:00 - 38:09
    It’s the yellow marked interconnection
    points and there is no way around them.
  • 38:09 - 38:17
    This basically means, the provider
    can monopolize the end customer.
  • 38:17 - 38:23
    At least as long [as] he is
    connected or subscribed.
  • 38:23 - 38:26
    There is no alternative way.
  • 38:26 - 38:31
    So this gives the provider
  • 38:31 - 38:35
    a position of power.
  • 38:35 - 38:38
    On the other hand these
    interconnection points used to be
  • 38:38 - 38:44
    – for a long period of time – so called
    Zero Settlement interconnections,
  • 38:44 - 38:48
    and they are basically the
    foundation of the internet.
  • 38:48 - 38:52
    Without Zero Settlement peering,
    without interconnection
  • 38:52 - 38:56
    the internet wouldn’t exist as we know it.
  • 38:56 - 39:00
    The broadband provider,
    mainly the incumbent,
  • 39:00 - 39:04
    the ex-monopolist,
    or large cable operators,
  • 39:04 - 39:07
    they tend to become more
    and more restrictive
  • 39:07 - 39:12
    to provide sufficient
    interconnection capacity.
  • 39:12 - 39:16
    Not upgrading interconnection
    to the requirements
  • 39:16 - 39:24
    is very common these days and
    it’s a passive aggressive behaviour.
  • 39:24 - 39:31
    So many providers – to name
    a few: Deutsche Telekom –
  • 39:31 - 39:34
    they just do nothing. They just wait.
  • 39:34 - 39:38
    And the end customers are suffering.
    Buffering is very common, especially
  • 39:38 - 39:44
    during prime-time.
    This is basically what the topic of…
  • 39:44 - 39:49
    …the main topic of this conference is:
    It’s a gated community. The provider
  • 39:49 - 39:57
    creates a gated community
    for his own end customers.
  • 39:57 - 40:01
    So as I said before:
  • 40:01 - 40:06
    The data is flowing from the server,
    from the video server to the end customer.
  • 40:06 - 40:10
    It’s about 50 times more
    traffic flowing to the client
  • 40:10 - 40:16
    and the usual traffic ratio we have
  • 40:16 - 40:21
    for a broadband provider is 1:5
    or 1:10. So they’re pulling about
  • 40:21 - 40:26
    10 times more traffic
    towards the end customer.
  • 40:26 - 40:32
    Then we have this interconnection
    policy. So they don’t do anything.
  • 40:32 - 40:37
    As I said before, they just over-subscribe
  • 40:37 - 40:43
    the existing interconnection.
    And if you want to upgrade you have to
  • 40:43 - 40:48
    have a traffic ratio of
    about 1:1.5 to 1.3.
  • 40:48 - 40:54
    But no video stream service
    can deliver traffic
  • 40:54 - 41:00
    and also maintain the traffic ratio.
    No content provider can.
  • 41:00 - 41:04
    So all they can do is: They can
    pay money to get upgraded.
  • 41:04 - 41:09
    And if they don’t pay,
    data is stuck in congestion
  • 41:09 - 41:19
    and their clients are suffering,
    seeing the buffering sign.
  • 41:19 - 41:23
    Large broadband providers, such as
    the incumbents and cable providers,
  • 41:23 - 41:29
    they want to get paid twice.
    They are able to force the money
  • 41:29 - 41:33
    due to the temporary
    monopoly – as I explained.
  • 41:33 - 41:37
    And they can ask money from the end
    customer and on the other hand
  • 41:37 - 41:40
    also from the content.
  • 41:40 - 41:44
    This is called double-sided market.
    And if they don’t pay,
  • 41:44 - 41:50
    the content is not paying, this is what we
    see. And sometimes – as a side note –
  • 41:50 - 41:55
    the end customer pays,
    but still sees this.
  • 41:55 - 42:00
    But IP interconnection would be cheap.
  • 42:00 - 42:04
    The business cost per broadband
    customer is just a few cents per month.
  • 42:04 - 42:10
    And if the provider would invest
    this, people would be happy.
  • 42:10 - 42:17
    On top content providers are easy to deal
    for peering or provide cache servers etc.
  • 42:17 - 42:24
    So please talk to our community
    fellows of Akamai, Apple,
  • 42:24 - 42:29
    Amazon, Facebook, Google,
    Limelight, Netflix.
  • 42:29 - 42:36
    T is not Telekom, it’s Twitch.
    And Zattoo, and a lot of others.
  • 42:36 - 42:40
    So traffic congestion is costly.
  • 42:40 - 42:45
    I took a random Google
    search and was looking for
  • 42:45 - 42:51
    how much traffic is actually costing.
    And “Die Welt” showed the result:
  • 42:51 - 43:00
    “Staus kosten in jedem
    Haushalt 509€/Jahr”.
  • 43:00 - 43:05
    So my assumption was:
    If traffic jam is costing money,
  • 43:05 - 43:09
    then probably data traffic jam
    is also costing some money.
  • 43:09 - 43:19
    But I figured that no one was
    really exploring that field, yet.
  • 43:19 - 43:23
    So I thought I’m going to do
    a little “Milchbüechlirächnig”
  • 43:23 - 43:26
    laughter
  • 43:26 - 43:32
    applause
  • 43:32 - 43:38
    When I was a child, the milk man came
    every morning and we just put our order
  • 43:38 - 43:43
    into the Milchbüechli and he put the milk
    into the box outside of the house.
  • 43:43 - 43:51
    By the end of the month, we went to the
    shop and paid our Milchbüechlirächnig.
  • 43:51 - 43:55
    So this is my quick calculation: We have
    about 30 million broadband connections
  • 43:55 - 44:03
    in Germany. I assume that everybody is
    waiting for one minute accumulated
  • 44:03 - 44:07
    while watching Netflix, YouTube,
    whatever. Probably this is far too less.
  • 44:07 - 44:13
    Who thinks one minute is fine, or –
    who thinks one minute is not enough?
  • 44:13 - 44:19
    Oh, ok, so let’s stick with one
    minute for the calculation.
  • 44:19 - 44:23
    And I also assumed that 5€ / hour waiting
  • 44:23 - 44:30
    is a good salary. So if you
    think, 5€ is not enough,
  • 44:30 - 44:35
    you can adapt the calculation.
    This is called “Reservationslohn”.
  • 44:35 - 44:40
    I have no clue what it means,
    but this was on Wikipedia,
  • 44:40 - 44:44
    for time when you take
    a job or refuse a job,
  • 44:44 - 44:49
    how much would be the
    value for the spare time.
  • 44:49 - 44:55
    So this is my calculation: If you wait one
    minute per day, this is 6 hours per year.
  • 44:55 - 44:59
    If you multiply this with the 5€,
  • 44:59 - 45:10
    every broadband customer
    would lose 30€ per year.
  • 45:10 - 45:15
    This sums up
    – with 30 million broadband subscribers -
  • 45:15 - 45:24
    to 900 million Euros per year. This is the
    economic damage in Germany per year.
  • 45:24 - 45:31
    applause
  • 45:31 - 45:36
    As we can assume that a large
    part of the buffering is caused
  • 45:36 - 45:39
    by the insufficient interconnection,
    especially during prime-time
  • 45:39 - 45:44
    when everybody wants to watch
    Netflix. This is also a result
  • 45:44 - 45:51
    of the restrictive peering policy of the
    incumbent and large cable operators
  • 45:51 - 45:55
    and the ability for them to
    force some extra money
  • 45:55 - 46:00
    out of these double sided
    market power as I explained.
  • 46:00 - 46:04
    They probably would gain a few
    millions. I don’t have exact figures
  • 46:04 - 46:09
    but I assume it’s probably
    some 10..20..30 millions per year,
  • 46:09 - 46:16
    they could force through
    this market power.
  • 46:16 - 46:20
    On the other hand we have the damage
    of 900 Million Euro per year and I mean
  • 46:20 - 46:28
    this is like a – how do you
    say that? – Imbalance.
  • 46:28 - 46:32
    So my conclusion in democratic
    countries like [in] Western Europe:
  • 46:32 - 46:36
    The economic gain of a multibillion
    company at the expense
  • 46:36 - 46:42
    of the general public is
    commonly not tolerated.
  • 46:42 - 46:48
    The next question is basically following
    the previous talk of Thomas:
  • 46:48 - 46:53
    When will the regulators wake up
    and force every market participant
  • 46:53 - 46:58
    to cooperative peering and interconnection
    because the end user is suffering,
  • 46:58 - 47:02
    the public is suffering.
    Zero Settlement peering – as I explained -
  • 47:02 - 47:07
    is rather common.
    Of course the incumbent,
  • 47:07 - 47:12
    the Deutsche Telekom lobbyists
    would tell otherwise, this is clear.
  • 47:12 - 47:16
    The unbalanced traffic should no
    longer be used to refuse peering;
  • 47:16 - 47:21
    and also disputes about the
    interconnection should be resolved
  • 47:21 - 47:28
    rather quick. My case against
    Swisscom is taking years already
  • 47:28 - 47:32
    and still no end… no light
    at the end of the tunnel.
  • 47:32 - 47:37
    Then, last but not least we should
    have broadband providers…
  • 47:37 - 47:48
    must be committed to the interests
    of their own end user customer base.
  • 47:48 - 47:55
    As I said, Telekom managed to get paid
    twice because of their market power;
  • 47:55 - 47:59
    and other Telecoms, such as
    Telecom Hungaria or Swisscom,
  • 47:59 - 48:05
    they use Deutsche Telekom and
    their market power as a leverage
  • 48:05 - 48:09
    to force their also
    restrictive peering policy;
  • 48:09 - 48:13
    and the regulators so far don’t do
    much. I quote here Marc Furrer,
  • 48:13 - 48:18
    this is the chief of ComCom Switzerland:
    “Nur ein fauler Regulator
  • 48:18 - 48:22
    ist ein guter Regulator”.
    laughing
  • 48:22 - 48:32
    Thank you! Questions?
    applause
  • 48:32 - 48:37
    Herald: Okay, thank you Fredy; and
    let’s have Thomas back up on stage
  • 48:37 - 48:41
    and we’re gonna take questions, please.
  • 48:41 - 48:44
    There is actually more than the
    [number of] mics I said before,
  • 48:44 - 48:49
    there is two right up on the top
    and there is three in each aisle.
  • 48:49 - 48:54
    So if you please line up if you have
    any questions to ask; and please
  • 48:54 - 48:58
    speak into the mic, we need
    your questions on tape,
  • 48:58 - 49:03
    and those who are leaving
    now: Do it silently please.
  • 49:03 - 49:10
    Okay, first question, over there!
  • 49:10 - 49:15
    Question: I have a question for
    Thomas: From your talk it sounds
  • 49:15 - 49:19
    like you did a lot of work. Can you
    tell us a little bit about the budgeting,
  • 49:19 - 49:22
    that goes into having a team like that?
  • 49:22 - 49:27
    T: Yeah, so, SaveTheInternet
    is a coalition of 12 NGOs
  • 49:27 - 49:32
    which have all their independent
    budget. There is no fixed budget
  • 49:32 - 49:36
    for the work that we have
    been doing as a whole.
  • 49:36 - 49:40
    All of them have transparency
    reports. So I can not really speak
  • 49:40 - 49:47
    for the budget of EDRI or accessnow. The
    organization where I am based in Austria
  • 49:47 - 49:52
    got a grant from the media democracy
    foundation from 10.000€;
  • 49:52 - 49:57
    and money from Netflix, 10.000€ also.
  • 49:57 - 50:01
    And we used both for development
    and paying for the faxes. Because
  • 50:01 - 50:05
    in the second round of the fax tool
    the provider that it was referring to
  • 50:05 - 50:08
    was no longer paying.
  • 50:08 - 50:14
    Otherwise the funding in general about
    Digital Rights in Europe is awfully low.
  • 50:14 - 50:18
    So if you compare it to the U.S.
    where you had double-digit millions
  • 50:18 - 50:24
    going into the lobbying it is
    ridiculous what resources we have
  • 50:24 - 50:29
    here in Europe; and we are thinking
    about making a donation tool
  • 50:29 - 50:33
    for the new SaveTheInternet;
    but again, that’s complicated
  • 50:33 - 50:38
    because you have 12 NGOs with
    very different activity scales.
  • 50:38 - 50:41
    Like some of them do a lot, others
    not so much. So how would you divide
  • 50:41 - 50:45
    the money? These are unresolved questions,
    that we are working on right now.
  • 50:45 - 50:49
    If you wanna support us with independent
    funding, then just donate to
  • 50:49 - 50:55
    the individual organizations.
    EDRI, Initiative für Netzfreiheit,
  • 50:55 - 50:59
    are probably the ones I would mention
    most, because they have done
  • 50:59 - 51:03
    most of the work; accessnow as well,
    but they generally have a lot of funding
  • 51:03 - 51:05
    from the U.S., so I don’t think
    they need it that much.
  • 51:05 - 51:08
    Q: But to summarize, I saw a picture of
    your team. I saw all the work you did.
  • 51:08 - 51:14
    You did that for 20.000€?
    T: No. I never got a Cent.
  • 51:14 - 51:17
    I was paid by EDRI for 4 months
    when I was working in Brussels
  • 51:17 - 51:21
    within BEREC for the first reading;
    but otherwise this was mostly free time.
  • 51:21 - 51:26
    I got my expenses covered for travel
    but other than that I am doing this
  • 51:26 - 51:37
    in my spare time. Also now I’m employed…
    applause
  • 51:37 - 51:39
    …I work for Data Protection NGOs,
    so they are allowing me to do
  • 51:39 - 51:43
    a lot of my stuff also for Net Neutrality.
  • 51:43 - 51:49
    Herald: We’re all elephants. We do it
    for peanuts. Okay, No.1 go ahead!
  • 51:49 - 51:55
    Mic 1: Yeah, hello! Hi Thomas, thanks
    a lot for your work, that’s great.
  • 51:55 - 51:59
    I have a question about the involvement
    of the business, the angels
  • 51:59 - 52:03
    and the companies: What is the
    reason, what do you think
  • 52:03 - 52:09
    why they came so late into
    this discussion in Germany.
  • 52:09 - 52:13
    What probably can we do to change
    this in the future because
  • 52:13 - 52:18
    I think that’s a… they
    are great allies in this fight.
  • 52:18 - 52:21
    Thomas: That’s… you’re asking
    exactly the right question.
  • 52:21 - 52:26
    Sadly, in Europe you have no
    organized voice for startups
  • 52:26 - 52:30
    or for SMEs when it comes
    to Digital Rights issues;
  • 52:30 - 52:34
    and you would have to work with them
    to get them involved in the debate.
  • 52:34 - 52:37
    They were really late to the party
    and then, again, mostly activated
  • 52:37 - 52:44
    through U.S. networks. So the connection
    between the civil rights scene here
  • 52:44 - 52:49
    and the business scene, particularly the
    one which is organized in Brussels
  • 52:49 - 52:54
    with European umbrellas is very weak.
    So everything you can do there
  • 52:54 - 52:58
    to strengthen this connection
    would be great.
  • 52:58 - 53:01
    But I don’t have those business
    contacts. I got a few people involved
  • 53:01 - 53:04
    in the first reading stuff but we’ll
    definitely need more people that
  • 53:04 - 53:09
    act as multipliers to get more
    companies involved, particularly now
  • 53:09 - 53:13
    when we enter into a new phase
    with the BEREC guidelines.
  • 53:13 - 53:18
    We no longer need the loud arguments of…
  • 53:18 - 53:22
    …of many people, we need more the
    arguments from the business side,
  • 53:22 - 53:26
    from the universities, from those people
    who run networks. These arguments are
  • 53:26 - 53:30
    better suited to make
    a difference with the regulators.
  • 53:30 - 53:36
    Fredy: And to add: Don’t underestimate
    the influence of the lobbies,
  • 53:36 - 53:41
    of the big names, the Telecoms
    and the liberty globals…
  • 53:41 - 53:46
    They have a lot of money and they
    try to influence the politicians
  • 53:46 - 53:51
    as good as they can. They do
    a good job from their perspective.
  • 53:51 - 53:58
    Thomas: You can be sure that the Telecoms
    will have people for all 28 regulators,
  • 53:58 - 54:02
    now continuously lobbying for an
    upcoming 9 months. The question is:
  • 54:02 - 54:06
    Who is in our team?
  • 54:06 - 54:11
    Herald: OK. Thank you. Is there a question
    from the internet? While we’re at it?
  • 54:11 - 54:16
    Signal Angel: Yes, there is a question,
    it is: Whether peering providers
  • 54:16 - 54:19
    should differentiate between
    virtual private network traffic
  • 54:19 - 54:23
    and public traffic; and where is the line
  • 54:23 - 54:31
    between internal network
    and the public internet?
  • 54:31 - 54:37
    Fredy: What should I say… this is
    difficult question, I mean… Basically,
  • 54:37 - 54:43
    if you over-commit your backbone
    then there is always plenty of traffic…
  • 54:43 - 54:50
    or plenty of capacity. So there is…
    there shouldn’t be any differentiation.
  • 54:50 - 54:57
    Networks should provide enough
    capacity and then we’re good.
  • 54:57 - 55:01
    A common argument from the big names:
  • 55:01 - 55:07
    “Oh we are investing millions and millions
    and millions in broadband expansion”,
  • 55:07 - 55:12
    but unfortunately they stop investing
    right at the end of their own backbone
  • 55:12 - 55:17
    so they don’t invest any money
    beyond their little percentage
  • 55:17 - 55:24
    of the total investment
    for their interconnections.
  • 55:24 - 55:29
    Herald: Okay, there is
    another question at No.1?
  • 55:29 - 55:33
    Mic 1: I have a question about buffering:
    So the most of the content in the web is
  • 55:33 - 55:38
    delivered over TCP/IP and…
    will changing the media
  • 55:38 - 55:43
    to something like UDP which has
    lower overhead over TCP/IP;
  • 55:43 - 55:47
    will that change the situation?
  • 55:47 - 55:48
    Fredy: Not really.
    Mic 1: No?
  • 55:48 - 55:54
    Fredy: No. It won’t help. I mean
    packet loss is packet loss
  • 55:54 - 56:02
    regardless whether it’s TCP or it’s UDP.
  • 56:02 - 56:07
    Herald: OK, that was a short answer. Next
    question please. Please talk into the mic.
  • 56:07 - 56:11
    Mic: So when I came here, this
    year, I had the impression that
  • 56:11 - 56:15
    at digital subscriber line connections
  • 56:15 - 56:20
    not only bandwidth is bad but also the
  • 56:20 - 56:24
    ping [time] gets up way high.
    Of course, I mean,
  • 56:24 - 56:28
    at home I have Fiber7 nowadays
    so I just thought I got spoiled
  • 56:28 - 56:33
    by fiber connections but I noticed
    that ping times went up
  • 56:33 - 56:38
    from, well, couple of years ago 60-80 ms
  • 56:38 - 56:42
    from sites in your neighborhood
    more or less
  • 56:42 - 56:49
    to nowadays 80-160ms.
    Where is the problem there?
  • 56:49 - 56:52
    Fredy: Well, the latency
    is directly related
  • 56:52 - 56:56
    if the provider is not delivering
    enough bandwidth,
  • 56:56 - 57:03
    then ping goes up that’s
    a normal behaviour of TCP.
  • 57:03 - 57:08
    Mic: So the problem is also
    at the interconnection sites?
  • 57:08 - 57:13
    Fredy: Probably yes, most likely,
    you can find out if you do traceroute.
  • 57:13 - 57:19
    Then you see where… well,
    there is a long presentation
  • 57:19 - 57:25
    how to interpret traceroute properly.
    If you look for “Nanog traceroute”
  • 57:25 - 57:31
    you should find this lecture. But that
    would probably give some indication.
  • 57:31 - 57:35
    Mic: Alright, thank you.
    Herald: Thank you. Next question from
  • 57:35 - 57:39
    the internet, just in between and
    then we’ll go back, go ahead.
  • 57:39 - 57:43
    Signal Angel: “Is Netflix a gated
    community by itself?” and
  • 57:43 - 57:47
    “Are you sure that their interest
    will align with the movement
  • 57:47 - 57:52
    of net neutrality in the long run?”
  • 57:52 - 57:57
    Fredy: We should differentiate
    between Netflix content
  • 57:57 - 58:02
    and Netflix interconnections. So for
    the content I probably would say:
  • 58:02 - 58:08
    Yes. But I am not the expert. This would
    be then layer 7 in the OSI model.
  • 58:08 - 58:12
    I am talking here on layer 3,
    this is content agnostic.
  • 58:12 - 58:17
    Netflix, they are one of the good
    guys because they really help
  • 58:17 - 58:24
    to deliver the packets. I know
    them personally a few fellows
  • 58:24 - 58:30
    from the peering community.
    They are the good guys, definitely.
  • 58:30 - 58:33
    Thomas: Just also to answer this
    question for the European debate,
  • 58:33 - 58:37
    Netflix was one of the good guys in the
    U.S. and they also supported of course
  • 58:37 - 58:41
    the European movement. But again, they are
    so big that I wouldn’t really trust them
  • 58:41 - 58:45
    as an ally because they could
    also pay, they could also survive
  • 58:45 - 58:51
    in a double sided market and for them
    in the growing emerging markets
  • 58:51 - 58:56
    like Europe where they just have started
    it’s probably risky to allow for this
  • 58:56 - 59:02
    new type of anti net neutrality business
    models; but in the consumer side
  • 59:02 - 59:07
    where net neutrality is seen as an end
    user issue I think so far their interests
  • 59:07 - 59:11
    mostly align. On interconnection they
    have their own interests, of course.
  • 59:11 - 59:15
    Fredy: So I can say: Netflix is
    definitely paying Deutsche Telekom,
  • 59:15 - 59:19
    otherwise no single Deutsche Telekom user
  • 59:19 - 59:24
    would be able to watch any
    movie on Netflix! So! For sure!
  • 59:24 - 59:27
    Herald: Okay, we are short for
    time so please, last 2 questions.
  • 59:27 - 59:31
    One, no.2 first. Keep it short,
    please. Talk into the mic.
  • 59:31 - 59:36
    Mic 2: Regarding the first talk: What
    is the… do you have an explanation for
  • 59:36 - 59:42
    the behaviour of the European Commission
    in behave of the net neutrality debate?
  • 59:42 - 59:46
    I especially think of the behaviour
    of Guenther Oettinger
  • 59:46 - 59:52
    who repeatedly said his ridiculous lie
  • 59:52 - 59:57
    of “net neutrality kills” and
    he repeated it again and again
  • 59:57 - 60:04
    even if there was no reason
    behind it. And do you
  • 60:04 - 60:09
    have an explanation for this behavior
    of the Commission, and Juncker and this?
  • 60:09 - 60:12
    Thomas: For that argument, we had this
    great YouTube video “net neutrality kills”.
  • 60:12 - 60:16
    If you search it you will find it or
    “Netzneutralität tötet” in German.
  • 60:16 - 60:20
    That deconstructs this argument of
    Oettinger. But in general, and you can
  • 60:20 - 60:24
    go back to the previous commissioner
    Neelie Kroes that I showed.
  • 60:24 - 60:27
    Our sole suspicion is that the deal
    was that the telecom industry
  • 60:27 - 60:30
    has to give up a little bit of their
    profits when it comes to Roaming,
  • 60:30 - 60:34
    but on the other side they gain a lot
    of future profits on the abolishment
  • 60:34 - 60:37
    of net neutrality. And so it was like:
    “Okay, we need a populist argument”,
  • 60:37 - 60:42
    Neelie Kroes also needs a quick
    win at the end of her career.
  • 60:42 - 60:47
    And this was again like you take
    a little bit there and put it there
  • 60:47 - 60:52
    for the Telecoms industry. And Oettinger
    is a big industrial favour guy,
  • 60:52 - 60:55
    he is always for big business.
  • 60:55 - 60:59
    Herald: Okay, short for time,
    last question, No.1.
  • 60:59 - 61:03
    Mic 1: Hi, so what strategy should an ISP
    use when their capacity on their backbones
  • 61:03 - 61:09
    is fully loaded? Like first-in-first-out
    or what is your idea about that, because
  • 61:09 - 61:13
    the capacity is limited, so when there is
    so much traffic that everything is stuck.
  • 61:13 - 61:15
    Fredy: Upgrade!
    Thomas: Yes, invest in the network!
  • 61:15 - 61:22
    Fredy: I mean, sorry, a 10G port is now
    some 3000€ including optic and cross
  • 61:22 - 61:27
    connect. It’s not that much. Upgrade!
  • 61:27 - 61:30
    Herald: Okay, thank you!
    Let’s have a hand!
  • 61:30 - 61:32
    applause
  • 61:32 - 61:38
    Fredy Kuenzler, Thomas Lohninger.
    Thank you very much! And goodbye.
  • 61:38 - 61:44
    postroll music
  • 61:44 - 61:49
    Subtitles created by c3subtitles.de
    in the year 2016. Join and help us!
Title:
Thomas Lohninger: Net Neutrality in Europe
Description:

more » « less
Video Language:
English
Duration:
01:01:50

English subtitles

Revisions Compare revisions