Telecoms Package 2nd Reading ITRE IMCO Amendments

In the following amendments, amended text with regard to Council's common position is highlighted in bold italics. In the case of amending acts, passages in an existing provision that the Council has left unchanged, but that Parliament wishes to amend, are highlighted in bold. Any deletions that Parliament wishes to make in passages of this kind are stroke out.

This page will be updated as new amendments are filed and our analysis deepened.

These amendments were replaced by compromise amendments voted in IMCO on Mar 31st, and in ITRE on Apr 21st.

COD/2007/0247 - Trautmann report (framework, access, authorisation) - ITRE committee

 * Amendments 1-110: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-420.223+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN
 * Amendments 111-167: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-421.390+01+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=FR
 * (not published yet on http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/organes/itre/itre_20090330_1500.htm)

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING

on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directives 2002/21/EC on a common regulatory framework for electronic communications networks and services, 2002/19/EC on access to, and interconnection of, electronic communications networks and associated facilities, and 2002/20/EC on the authorisation of electronic communications networks and services (16496/1/2008 – C6-0066/2009 – 2007/0247(COD))

Committee on Industry, Research and Energy (ITRE), rapporteur Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR

Amendment 42 -

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point a amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 1 – subparagraph 2 tabled by Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

Unless otherwise provided in Article 9 regarding radio frequencies or unless otherwise required in order to fulfil the objectives laid down in paragraphs 2 to 4, Member States shall take the utmost account of the desirability of making regulations technologically neutral and shall ensure that, in carrying out the regulatory tasks specified in this Directive and the Specific Directives, in particular those designed to ensure effective competition, national regulatory authorities do likewise.

The addition of "paragraphs 2 to 4" in exceptions to network neutrality can be dangerous if amendment 45 (8.4.g) is passed.


 * Voting recommendation: reject

Amendment 45 ---

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point fa amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point fa tabled by Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(fa) applying the principle that end-users should be able to access and distribute any lawful content and use any lawful applications and/or services of their choice;

The notion of unlawful content is known to be applied to copyrighted content accessed or distributed without authorisation. As the rapporteur and the Council have stated, the Framework Directive has nothing to do with copyright. Therefore the amendment should be rejected or alternatively the word lawful should be deleted twice.


 * Voting recommendation: against or should be amended as: (fa) applying the principle that end-users should be able to access and distribute any content and use any applications and/or services of their choice;.

Amendment 46 +++

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point fb amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point fb tabled by Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR
 * 3-strike/Fundamental Rights

(fb) applying the principle that no restriction may be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of end- users, without a prior ruling by the judicial authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union on freedom of expression and information, save when public security is threatened in which case the ruling may be subsequent.

This amendment restores AM 138 adopted in 1st reading, which provides useful safeguards against other provisions laying grounds to "three-strikes approach" (graduated response).


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 78 +

 * Article 1 -­ point 21 - amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 19 tabled by Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

1. Without prejudice to Article 9 of this Directive and Articles 6 and 8 of Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive), where the Commission finds that divergences in the implementation by the national regulatory authorities of the regulatory tasks specified in this Directive and the Specific Directives may create a barrier to the internal market, the Commission may, taking the utmost account of the opinion of GERT, if any, issue a decision on the harmonised application of the provisions in this Directive and the Specific Directives in order to further the achievement of the objectives set out in Article 8. '2a. The decision referred to in paragraph' 1 designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it, shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 22(3). '2b. Measures adopted pursuant to' paragraph 1 may include the identification of a harmonised or coordinated approach to deal with the following issues: (a)    the consistent implementation of regulatory approaches, including the regulatory treatment of new services, sub- national markets and of cross-border electronic communications services provided to businesses; (b)    numbering, naming and addressing issues, including number ranges, portability of numbers and identifiers, number and address translation systems, and access to 112 emergency services; (c)    consumer issues not covered by Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive), including in particular access to electronic communications services and equipment by disabled end-users; (d)    regulatory accounting, including the calculation of investment risk.

This is not a prure Net Neutrality/Discrimination amendment, but neutrality and non-discrimination has to be enforced by a competent regulator, particularly when it comes to new services and issues outside the scope of 2002/22/EC.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 83 -

 * Article 2 -­ point 2 - amending Directive 2002/19/EC Article 4 ­- paragraph 1 tabled by Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

1. Operators of public communications networks shall have a right and, when requested by other undertakings so authorised in accordance with Article 4 of Directive 2002/20/EC (Authorisation Directive), an obligation to negotiate interconnection with each other for the purpose of providing publicly available electronic communications services or delivering broadcast content or information society services, in order to ensure provision and interoperability of services throughout the Community. Operators shall offer access and interconnection to other undertakings on terms and conditions consistent with obligations imposed by the national regulatory authority pursuant to Articles 5 to 8. However, the terms and conditions of interconnection shall not introduce unjustified barriers to interoperability. Dividing interconnection negotiations into classes a) electronic communications services, b) broadcast content and c) information society services is indicative of a paradigm non-compliant with the universal charachter of technology neutral Internet information exchange, and invites introducing barriers on a network that is interoperable by design. Such a paradigm must be justified by research and impact assessments.


 * Voting recommendation: against.

Amendment 85
148 == 149 -- ===


 * Article 2 – point 3 – point aa (new) amending Directive 2002/19/EC Article 5 – paragraph 1 – point a tabled by Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR & Robert GOEBBELS, PSE, LU, Andres TARAND, PSE, EE & Rebecca HARMS, Verts/ALE, DE, Helga TRÜPEL, Verts/ALE, DE, David Hammerstein, Verts/ALE, ES
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(aa) in paragraph 1, point (a) shall be replaced by: “(a) to the extent that is necessary to ensure end-to-end connectivity or fair and reasonable access to third-party services, obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users, including in justified cases the obligation to interconnect their networks where this is not already the case or to make their services interoperable on fair, transparent and reasonable terms;”

This amendment introduces "fair and reasonable access to third-party services" as an alternative to end-to-end connectivity which breaks the fundamental peer-2-peer architecture of the Internet. The original article wording is as follows: '(a) to the extent that is necessary to ensure end-to-end connectivity, obligations on undertakings that control access to end-users, including in justified cases the obligation to interconnect their networks where this is not already the case;'


 * Voting recommendation: against or should be amended as: replace or with and

Amendment 90 --

 * Article 2 – point 7 – point a amending Directive 2002/19/EC Article 9 – paragraph 1 tabled by Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

1. National regulatory authorities may, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, impose obligations for transparency in relation to interconnection and/or access, requiring operators to make public specified information, such as accounting information, technical specifications, network characteristics, restrictions on access to services and applications, traffic management policies, terms and conditions for supply and use, including traffic management policies, and prices.

The term traffic management policies is known to be used to establish network discrimination. And, while Council has used it in this provision as an example of terms and conditions for supply and use, here it is repeated as an obligation. Since some threats to network neutrality appear in Universal Service Directive, via the use of traffic management policies, it should be deleted in this paragraph. The fact that this paragraph establishes some obligations of transparency on network management policies leaves some place for network discrimination, if the term is not properly defined. Moreover, this obligation is followed by restrictions on access to service and applications which was the equivalent adopted by the European Parliament in first reading to the wording traffic management policies adopted by the Council in its Common Position.


 * Voting recommendation: reject and add a recital: A network management policy is deemed non-discriminatory when it is ordered by a decision from the judicial authority, or when users can deactivate it at no extra cost, or when it is a temporary, short term, response to malicious activity or unpredictable occurrence threatening the integrity or security of the network, or end-user security. Such limitation must always be carried out without giving priority to selected users or content/service providers.

No Amendment to Article 9 − Paragraph 2 − point e of Access Directive -
This article still reads as follow:

2. When national regulatory authorities are considering the obligations referred in paragraph 1, and in particular when assessing how such obligations would be imposed proportionate to the objectives set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive), they shall take account in particular of the following factors: [...] (e) where appropriate, any relevant intellectual property rights;

As the rapporteur and the Council have stated, the Framework Directive has nothing to do with intellectual property rights, therefore this point should be deleted.


 * Voting recommendation: propose an amendment deleting Article 9 − Paragraph 2 − point e of Access Directive.

Amendment 107 -

 * Annex – point 2 – point h amending Directive 2002/20/EC Annex – part A – point 19 tabled by Catherine TRAUTMANN, PSE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

19. Transparency obligations on undertakings providing electronic communications services available to the public to ensure end-to-end connectivity, including unrestricted access to content, services and applications, in conformity with the objectives and principles set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive), disclosure regarding traffic management policies and, where necessary and proportionate, access by national regulatory authorities to such information needed to verify the accuracy of such disclosure.

This amendment circumscribe the basic right to end-to-end connectivity by allowing undertakings to defacto place restrictions on user's services. The logical effect of the word including is actually excluding unlimited access.


 * Voting recommendation: against. Could be ameded as follows:

19. Transparency obligations on undertakings providing electronic communications services available to the public to ensure end-to-end connectivity, and unrestricted access to content,' services and applications,' in conformity with the objectives and principles set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive)'. Disclosure shall' include traffic management policies and access by national regulatory authorities to such information needed to verify the accuracy of such disclosure.

If amended in such a way, the amendment adds some safeguards to users' right to access content, services and applications and gives a reason to delete the word lawful in Amendment 45 (Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point fa) as suggested.

Amendment 132
Amendment 133 + ===


 * Article 1 – point 8 – point b a (new) amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 2 – point b tabled by Robert GOEBBELS, PSE, LU, Andres TARAND, PSE, EE & Rebecca HARMS, Verts/ALE, DE, Helga TRÜPEL, Verts/ALE, DE, David Hammerstein, Verts/ALE, ES
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(b) ensuring that there is no distortion or restriction of competition in the electronic communications and information society services, in particular for the delivery of and access to content and electronic communications and information society services across all networks.

Garantees network neutrality for competition.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 134 +++

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point f a (new) amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point fa (new) tabled by Rebecca HARMS, Verts/ALE, DE, Helga TRÜPEL, Verts/ALE, DE, David Hammerstein, Verts/ALE, ES
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(fa) in paragraph 4, point (fa) shall be inserted: “(fa) applying the principle that end-users should  be able to access and distribute any content and  use any applications and/or services of their  choice;”

Access and distribution of any content, and not only lawful content


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 135 +++

 * Article 1 – point 8 – point f b (new) amending Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point f b (new) tabled by Rebecca HARMS, Verts/ALE, DE, Helga TRÜPEL, Verts/ALE, DE, David Hammerstein, Verts/ALE, ES
 * 3-strike/Fundamental Rights

(fb) in paragraph 4, point (fb) shall be inserted: “(fb) applying the principle that no restriction may  be imposed on the fundamental rights and freedoms of  end users, without a prior ruling by the judicial  authorities, notably in accordance with Article 11 of  the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union  concerning freedom of expression and information, save  when public security is threatened in which case the  ruling may be subsequent.”

Restores Amendment 138 of first reading, repeats Trautmann's 46.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 150
Amendment 151 ++ ===


 * Article 2 – point 7 – point a amending Directive 2002/19/EC Article 9 – paragraph 1 tabled by Angelika NIEBLER, PPE-DE, DE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

1. National regulatory authorities may, in accordance with the provisions of Article 8, impose obligations for transparency in relation to interconnection and/or access, requiring operators to make public specified information, such as accounting information, technical specifications, network characteristics, terms and conditions for supply and use, including the purpose and  effect of traffic management policies, and prices.

Transparency concerning the goals and consequences of traffic management policies.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 166
Amendment 167 - ===


 * Annex – point 2 – point h amending Directive 2002/20/EC Annex – part A – point 19 tabled by Robert GOEBBELS, PSE, LU, Andres TARAND, PSE, EE & Rebecca HARMS, Verts/ALE, DE, Helga TRÜPEL, Verts/ALE, DE, David Hammerstein, Verts/ALE, ES
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

19. Transparency obligations on undertakings providing electronic communications services available to the public to ensure end-to-end connectivity, including unrestricted  access to and distribution of content, services and  applications, in conformity with the objectives and principles set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive), disclosure regarding traffic management policies and, where necessary and proportionate, access by national regulatory authorities to such information needed to verify the accuracy of such disclosure.

This amendment circumscribe the basic right to end-to-end connectivity by allowing undertakings to defacto place restrictions on user's services. The logical effect of the word including is actually excluding unlimited access.


 * Voting recommendation: against. Could be ameded as follows:

19. Transparency obligations on undertakings providing electronic communications services available to the public to ensure end-to-end connectivity, and unrestricted access to content, services and applications, in conformity with the objectives and principles set out in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC (Framework Directive)'. Disclosure shall' include traffic management policies and access by national regulatory authorities to such information needed to verify the accuracy of such disclosure.

If amended in such a way, the amendment adds some safeguards to users' right to access content, services and applications and gives a reason to delete the word lawful in Amendment 45 (Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point fa) as suggested.

COD/2007/0248 - Harbour report (universal service, ePrivacy) - IMCO committee

 * Amendments 1-103: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/pr/772/772115/772115en.pdf
 * Amendments 104-152: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/meetdocs/2004_2009/documents/am/774/774539/774539en.pdf

DRAFT RECOMMENDATION FOR SECOND READING

on the Council common position for adopting a directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on amending Directive 2002/22/EC on universal service and users' rights relating to electronic communications networks, Directive 2002/58/EC concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 on cooperation between national authorities for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (16497/1/2008 – C6-0068/2009 – 2007/0248(COD))

Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO), rapporteur Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB

No Amendment to Recital 20 --
This recital still reads as follow:

(20) In order to address public interest issues with respect to the use of communications services and to encourage protection of the rights and freedoms of others, the relevant national authorities should be able to produce and have disseminated, with the aid of providers, public interest information related to the use of communications services. This information could include public interest information regarding copyright infringement, other unlawful uses and the dissemination of harmful content, and advice and means of protection against risks to personal security, which may for example arise from disclosure of personal information in certain circumstances, as well as risks to privacy and personal data. The information could be coordinated by way of the cooperation procedure established in Article 33(3) of Directive 2002/22/EC (Universal Service Directive). Such public interest information should be updated whenever necessary and it should be presented in easily comprehensible printed and electronic formats, as determined by each Member State, and on national public authority websites. National regulatory authorities should be able to oblige providers to disseminate this standardised information to all their customers in a manner deemed appropriate by the national regulatory authorities. When required by Member States, the information should also be included in contracts.

This recital has been identified to lay grounds to "three-strikes approach" (graduated response). If amendment 46 to Framework Directive, which provides some safeguards against this scheme, is not passed, it is better to delete this recital.


 * Voting recommendation: propose an amendment deleting Recital 20.

Amendment 5 -

 * Recital 22 tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(22) End-users should decide what content they require to be able to send and receive, and which services, applications, hardware and software they require to use for such purposes, without prejudice to the need to preserve the integrity and 'security of networks and services. A' competitive market with transparent offerings as provided for in Directive 2002/22/EC should ensure that end-users are able to access and distribute any content and to use any applications and/or services of their choice, as stated in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC. Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should in any case be fully informed of any limitations imposed on the use of electronic communications services by the service and/or network 'provider. Such information should, at the' option of the provider, specify the type of content, application or service concerned, individual applications or services, or 'both. Depending on the technology used' and the type of limitation, such limitations may require user consent under Directive 2002/58/EC.

Provides some safeguards against network discrimination. But type of limitation should not be specified at the option of the provider, since it would hinder transparency imposed on providers. Moreover this amendment gives a reason to delete the word lawful in Amendment 45 of ITRE draft report (Directive 2002/21/EC Article 8 – paragraph 4 – point fa) as suggested.


 * Voting recommendation: against or should be amended to delete , at the option of the provider,.

Amendment 6 ++

 * Recital 22a (new) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(22a) Directive 2002/22/EC does not require providers to monitor information transmitted over their networks or to bring legal proceedings against their customers on grounds of such information, nor does it make providers 'liable for that information. Responsibility' for punitive action or criminal prosecution remains with the relevant law enforcement authorities.

Restates the mere-conduct principle, which is at the basis of network neutrality.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

No Amendment to Recital 23 --
This recital still reads as follow:

(23) In the absence of relevant rules of Community law, content, applications and services are deemed lawful or harmful in accordance with national substantive and procedural law. It is a task for the Member States, not for providers of electronic communications networks or services, to decide, in accordance with due process, whether content, applications or services are lawful or harmful. The Framework Directive and the Specific Directives are without prejudice to Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce)(OJ L 178, 17.7.2000, p. 1.), which, inter alia, contains a "mere conduit" rule for intermediary service providers, as defined therein.

The reference to lawful content is known to be used as a ground for "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) and has nothing to do in the Universal Service Directive, since the rapporteur said that copyright enforcement has nothing to do in this directive.


 * Voting recommendation: propose an amendment deleting Recital 23.

Amendment 9

 * Recital 26 tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(26) A competitive market should ensure that users receive the quality of service they require, but in particular cases it may be necessary to ensure that public communications networks attain minimum quality levels so as to prevent degradation of service, the blocking of access and the slowing of traffic over networks. Since inconsistent remedies will significantly impair the achievement of the internal market, the Commission should assess any requirements set by national regulatory authorities for possible regulatory intervention across the Community and, if necessary, adopt technical implementing measures in order to achieve consistent application throughout the Community.

Mixes Recital 26 of the Council's Common Position and recital 14d of the European Parliament's first reading. It doesn't seem dangerous with regard to network discrimination. A similar amendment from AT&T was proposing to allow unjustified degradation of service, usage restrictions and/or limitations of traffic, which would have been very dangerous.


 * Voting recommendation: none.

Amendment 17 --

 * Recital 39 tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * 3-Strikes

(39) In order to overcome existing shortcomings in terms of consumer consultation and to appropriately address the interests of citizens, Member States should put in place an appropriate consultation mechanism. Such a mechanism could take the form of a body which would, independently from the national regulatory authority and from service providers, carry out research on consumer-related issues such as consumer behaviour and mechanisms for changing suppliers, and which would operate in a transparent manner and contribute to the existing mechanisms for stakeholders' consultations. Furthermore, a mechanism could be established for the purpose of enabling appropriate cooperation on issues relating to the promotion of lawful content. Any cooperation procedures agreed pursuant to such a mechanism should, however, not allow for the systematic surveillance of internet usage. Where there is a need to address the facilitation of the access to and use of electronic communications services and terminal equipment for disabled users, and without prejudice to Directive 1999/5/EC and in particular the disability requirements pursuant to Article 3(3)(f) thereof, the Commission should be empowered to adopt implementing measures.

This amendment doesn't change anything in the important provisions of this recital, namely ''Furthermore, a mechanism could be established for the purpose of enabling appropriate cooperation on issues relating to the promotion of lawful content. Any cooperation procedures agreed pursuant to such a mechanism should, however, not allow for the systematic surveillance of internet usage''. The cooperation to promote lawful content is known to be used as a ground for "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) and has nothing to do in the Universal Service Directive, since the rapporteur said that copyright enforcement has nothing to do in this directive.


 * Voting recommendation: propose an amendment deleting the two sentences Furthermore, a mechanism could be established for the purpose of enabling appropriate cooperation on issues relating to the promotion of lawful content. Any cooperation procedures agreed pursuant to such a mechanism should, however, not allow for the systematic surveillance of internet usage.

Amendment 18 +

 * Recital 39a (new) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Judicial Power

(39a) The procedure for out-of-court dispute resolution should be strengthened by ensuring that independent dispute resolution bodies are used, and that the procedure conforms at least to the minimum principles established by Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC of 30 March 1998 on the principles applicable to the bodies responsible for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes (OJ L 115, 17.4.1998, p. 31.). Member States may either use existing dispute resolution bodies for that purpose, provided those bodies meet the applicable requirements, or establish new 'bodies. Furthermore, when dealing with' out-of-court procedures, Member States should make every effort to ensure that those procedures are transparent and exercised impartially, in particular in view of Recommendation 98/257/EC, so that the effectiveness, fairness and legality of the procedure is safeguarded.

Principles established by Commission Recommendation 98/257/EC adds some safeguards for out-of-court settlement of consumer disputes, while it does not prevent a national administrative authority to enforce a "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) as currently drafted by French government.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 19 +

 * Recital 39b (new) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(39b)Directive 2002/58/EC provides for the harmonisation of the provisions of the Member States required to ensure an equivalent level of protection of fundamental rights and freedoms, and in particular the right to privacy and the right to confidentiality, with respect to the processing of personal data in the electronic communications sector, and to ensure the free movement of such data and of electronic communications equipment and services in the 'Community. Where measures aiming to' ensure that terminal equipment is constructed so as to safeguard the protection of personal data and privacy are adopted pursuant to Directive 1999/5/EC or Council Decision 87/95/EEC, such measures should respect the principle of technology neutrality.

Restates the principle of network neutrality.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 21

 * Recital 39d tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Privacy/Personal Data

(39d) Internet Protocol (IP) addresses are essential to the functioning of the 'internet. They identify network' participating devices, such as computers or mobile smart devices according to an assigned, although not necessarily exclusive, IP number also known as IP 'address. Given the variety of scenarios in' which IP addresses are used, and the related technologies which are rapidly evolving, questions have arisen about the use of such addresses as personal data in 'certain circumstances. The Commission' should therefore present related proposals as appropriate, on the basis of a study on IP addresses and their various uses.

This amendment restores, in a slightly modified version, Recital 27a adopted by European Parliament in its first reading. But this recital was presented by EDPS as an alternative to the deletion of a dangerous recital previously adopted in IMCO. Therefore, it can be adopted or rejected.


 * Voting recommendation: none.

Amendment 43 -

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point b tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(b) the services provided, including in particular: - whether or not access to emergency services and caller location information are being provided and/or any limitations for provision of emergency services under Article 26; - information on any limitations imposed by the undertaking, in accordance with national law, on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services, - the minimum service quality levels offered, namely the time for the initial connection and, where appropriate, other quality of service parameters, as defined by the national regulatory authorities, - the types of maintenance service offered and customer support services provided, as well as the methods to contact these services, and, - any restrictions imposed by the provider on the use of terminal equipment supplied

This article, as adopted by European Parliament in its first reading, raised concerns because of the second point which talked about restictions to access to lawful content. The Council replaced this by network management policies, which is also subject to concerns with regard to network neutrality. The wording of amendment 43 is more appropriate. But it still needs some boundaries to limitations on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services.


 * Voting recommendation: against and amend to state non-discriminatory limitation and add a recital: A limitation on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services is deemed non-discriminatory when it is ordered by a decision from the judicial authority, or when users can deactivate it at no extra cost, or when it is a temporary, short term, response to malicious activity or unpredictable occurrence threatening the integrity or security of the network, or end-user security. Such limitation must always be carried out without giving priority to selected users or content/service providers.

Amendment 49 -

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 21 – paragraph 3 tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

3. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to oblige undertakings providing connection to a public electronic communications network and/or electronic communications services to inter alia: (a) provide applicable tariff information to subscribers regarding any number or service subject to particular pricing conditions; with respect to individual categories of services, national regulatory authorities may require such information to be provided immediately prior to connecting the call (b) regularly remind subscribers of any lack of reliable access to emergency services or caller location information in the service they have subscribed to; (c) inform subscribers of any change to any limitations imposed by the undertaking, in accordance with national law, on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services, (d) inform subscribers of their right to determine whether or not to include their personal data in a directory and of the types of data concerned in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC; and (e) regularly inform disabled subscribers of details of products and services designed for them. If deemed appropriate, national regulatory authorities may promote self- or co-regulatory measures prior to imposing any obligation.

The same remarks apply for point (c) as for amendment 43.


 * Voting recommendation: against and amend to state non-discriminatory limitation and add a paragraph 22.4: A limitation on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services is deemed non-discriminatory when it is ordered by a decision from the judicial authority, or when users can deactivate it at no extra cost, or when it is a temporary, short term, response to malicious activity or unpredictable occurrence threatening the integrity or security of the network, or end-user security. Such limitation must always be carried out without giving priority to selected users or content/service providers.

Amendment 53

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3 − subparagraph 1 a (new) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

The Commission may, having examined such requirements and consulted the Body of European Regulators in Telecom (BERT), adopt technical implementing measures in that regard if it considers that the requirements may create a barrier to 'the internal market. Those measures' designed to amend non-essential elements of this Directive by supplementing it shall be adopted in accordance with the regulatory procedure with scrutiny referred to in Article 37(2).

This amendment restores partially Article 22 − paragraph 3 as adopted by European Parliament in its first reading, which has raised some concerns about the imposition of DRM. But the dangerous part of this paragraph has already be softened by the Council, replacing the reference to guidelines to enable the access or distribution of lawful content or applications by setting minimum quality of service requirements. Therefore, this amendment can be adopted or rejected.


 * Voting recommendation: none.

Amendment 72 +++

 * Article 1 – point 21 a (new) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 32 a (new) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Fundamental Rights/Net Neutrality/Discrimination

Article 32a Access to content, services and applications Member States shall ensure that any restrictions on the rights of users to access content, services and applications, if such restrictions are necessary, are implemented by appropriate measures, in accordance with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and 'dissuasiveness. Those measures shall not' have the effect of hindering the development of the information society, in compliance with Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce)*, and shall not conflict with the fundamental rights of citizens, including the right to privacy and the right to due process.

This amendment restores amendment 166 adopted by European Parliament in its first reading, which provides safeguards against net discrimination.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

No Amendment to Article 33 − Paragraph 3 of Universal Service Directive ---
This article still reads as follow:

3. Without prejudice to national rules in conformity with Community law promoting cultural and media policy objectives, such as cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism, national regulatory authorities and other relevant authorities may promote cooperation between undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services and sectors interested in the promotion of lawful content in electronic communication networks and services. That cooperation may also include coordination of the public interest information to be provided pursuant to Article 21(4)(a) and Article 20(1).

The cooperation between FAI and sectors interested in the promotion of lawful content is known to be used as a ground for "three-strikes" approach (graduated response) and has nothing to do in the Universal Service Directive, since the rapporteur said that copyright enforcement has nothing to do in this directive.


 * Voting recommendation: propose an amendment deleting Article 33 − Paragraph 3 of Universal Service Directive.

Amendment 74 +

 * Article 1 – point 23 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 34 – paragraph 1 tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Judicial Power

1. Member States shall ensure that transparent, non-discriminatory, simple and inexpensive out-of-court procedures are available for dealing with unresolved disputes between consumers and undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services arising under this Directive and relating to the contractual conditions and/or performance of contracts concerning the supply of those networks and/or services. Member States shall adopt measures to ensure that such procedures enable disputes to be settled fairly and promptly and may, where warranted, adopt a system of reimbursement and/or compensation. Such procedures shall enable disputes to be settled impartially and shall not deprive the consumer of the legal protection afforded by the national law. Member States may extend these obligations to cover disputes involving other end-users. Member States shall ensure that the bodies in charge of dealing with such disputes, which can be single points of contact, provide relevant information for statistical purposes to the Commission and the authorities. With specific regard to the interaction of audiovisual and electronic communications, Member States shall encourage reliable out-of-court procedures.

This amendment adds some safeguards for customer in case of out-of-court procedures.


 * Voting recommendation: for.

Amendment 85 --

 * Article 2 – point 6 amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 6 tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Privacy/Personal Data

(a) paragraph 1 shall be replaced by the following: 1. Traffic data relating to subscribers and users processed and stored by the provider of a public communications network or publicly available electronic communications service must be erased or made anonymous when it is no longer needed for the purpose of the transmission of a communication without prejudice to paragraphs 2, 2a, 3 and 5 of this Article and Article 15(1). (aa) The following paragraph 1 a shall be inserted: '''1a. Traffic data necessary for the''' purposes of subscriber billing and interconnection payments may be '''processed. Such processing is''' permissible only up to the end of the period during which the bill may lawfully be challenged or payment pursued. (ab) The following paragraph 1 b shall be inserted: '1b. Without prejudice to compliance with' provisions other than Article 7 of Directive 95/46/EC and Article 5 of this Directive, traffic data may be processed in the legitimate interest of the data controller for the purpose of implementing technical measures to ensure the network and information security, as defined by Article 4(c) of Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency (OJ L 77, 13.3.2004, p. 1.), of a public electronic communication service, a public electronic communications network, an information society service or related terminal and electronic communication equipment, except where such interest is overridden by those of the fundamental rights and freedoms of the data subject. Such processing shall be restricted to that which is strictly necessary for the purposes of such security activity. (b) paragraph 3 shall be replaced by the following: 3. For the purpose of marketing electronic communications services or for the provision of value added services, the provider of a publicly available electronic communications service may process the data referred to in paragraph 1 to the extent and for the duration necessary for such services or marketing, if the subscriber or user to whom the data relate has given his or her prior consent. Users or subscribers shall be given the possibility to withdraw their consent for the processing of traffic data at any time. 4. The service provider must inform the subscriber or user of the types of traffic data which are processed and of the duration of such processing for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 2 and 2a and, prior to obtaining consent, for the purposes mentioned in paragraph 3. 5. Processing of traffic data, in accordance with paragraphs 1, 2, 2a, 3 and 4, must be restricted to persons acting under the authority of providers of the public communications networks and publicly available electronic communications services handling billing or traffic management, customer enquiries, fraud detection, other network and information security, marketing electronic communications services or providing a value added service, and must be restricted to what is necessary for the purposes of such activities. 6. Paragraphs 1, 2, 2a, 3 and 5 shall apply without prejudice to the possibility for competent bodies to be informed of traffic data in conformity with applicable legislation with a view to settling disputes, in particular interconnection or billing disputes.

This amendment restores the article as adopted by the European Parliament in its first reading, and specially AM 181 which introduced Article 6.6a, renumbered 6.1b in the current amendment.

Both this amendment and the Council common position would allow the telecommunications industry to collect a potentially unlimited amount of sensitive, confidential communications data including our telephone and e-mail contacts, the geographic position of our mobile phones and the websites we visit on the Internet. Apart from the creation of vast data pools that could go far beyond what is being collected under the directive on data retention, the proposal would also permit the disclosure of traffic data to other companies, government authorities and individuals.

In his opinion of 9 January 2009, the EDPS "recommends to reject this Article". He confirms that "Article 6.6(a) is unnecessary and subject to risk of abuse" and goes on to say: "Any existing or future article is unlikely to remove the obvious risks of an overly broad application of the exception for reasons other than purely security related or by entities that should not be able to benefit from the exception. [...] Taking into account on the one hand the risks that Article 6.6(a) poses to the fundamental right to data protection and privacy of individuals, and on the other hand the fact that, as explained in this Opinion, from a legal point of view, this Article is unnecessary, the EDPS has come to the conclusion that the best outcome would be for the proposed Article 6.6(a) to be deleted altogether."

With amendment 85,
 * retention would not be limited to specific occasions and would thus take place permanently,
 * no maximum retention period would be specified, so data would potentially be stored forever,
 * the disclosure of our communications data to third parties would be legalized ("may be processed"),
 * data retained for security purposes could later be used for any other purpose, including disclosure to government authorities or IPR holders (no purpose limitation).

MEPs should heed the advice given by the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) and
 * 1) work towards the tabling of an amendment (e.g. group amendment in plenary) to delete article 2 point 6 of the Council common position altogether,
 * 2) in the meantime, vote for amendment 150 tabled by Ms Svensson in IMCO (vote scheduled for 31 March 2009), and
 * 3) work towards the withdrawal or the rejection of amendment 85 tabled by the rapporteur in IMCO.

For details see joint press release "EU proposal puts confidential communications data at risk" and background paper.


 * Voting recommendation: against this amendment and vote for amendment 150 instead.

Amendment 103

 * Annex I - Part B – point b b (new) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Protection of Childrens

(bb) Protection software Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to require operators to make available free of charge to their subscribers reliable, easy-to-use and freely and fully configurable protection and/or filtering software to prevent access by children or vulnerable persons to content unsuitable for them. Any traffic monitoring data that this software may collect is for the use of the subscriber only.

This amendment restores a provision adopted by European Parliament in its first reading. But this provision was adopted as an alternative to the deletion of a dangerous provision previously adopted in IMCO. Therefore, it can be adopted or rejected.


 * Voting recommendation: none.

Amendment 105 --

 * Recital 22  tabled by Syed KAMMALL, PPE-DE, UK'''
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(22) Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should be fully informed of any relevant limitations imposed on the use of electronic communications services by the service and/or network provider with which they conclude the contract.

This amendment is limited to information about network discrimination and delete a safeguard that limitations should be reasonable, while other amendments (106 & 107) to this recital state as a basic principle that end-users decide what they require to send and receive. Moreover any limitation is relevant.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 106 ++

 * Recital 22 tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(22) End-users should decide what content they require to be able to send and receive, and which services, applications, hardware and software they require to use for such purposes, without prejudice to the need to preserve the integrity and security of networks and  'services. A competitive market with transparent' offerings as provided for in Directive 2002/22/EC should ensure that end-users are able to access and distribute any content and to use any applications and/or services of their choice, as stated in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC. Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should in any case be fully informed of the traffic management policies of the service and/or network provider with which they conclude the contract. Disclosure should be such that consumers are able to make an informed decision, and enable them to choose to adjust their 'behaviour or to switch networks. The information on' traffic management policies should include the criteria and rules implemented by the operator for managing traffic, including the thresholds that will trigger changes in the 'users' experience of the services. It shall, where necessary,' disclose specific actions included in the traffic management 'policy. Depending on the technology used, this may require' user consent under Directive 2002/58/EC.

Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 107 +

 * Recital 22 tabled by Bernadette VERGNAUD, PSE, FR, Cristian Silviu BUŞOI, ALDE, RO, Heide RÜHLE, Verts/ALE, DE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(22) End-users should decide what content they want to be able to send and receive, and which services, applications, hardware and software they want to use for such purposes, without prejudice to the need to preserve the integrity and security of networks 'and services. A competitive market with transparent offerings' as provided for in Directive 2002/22/EC should ensure that end-users are able to access and distribute any content and to use any applications and/or services of their choice, as stated in Article 8 of Directive 2002/21/EC. Given the increasing importance of electronic communications for consumers and businesses, users should be fully informed of the traffic management policies of, and subsequent possible limitations of access to applications or services imposed by, the service and/or network provider with which they conclude the contract. Where there is a lack of effective competition, national regulatory authorities should use the remedies available to them under Directive 2002/19/EC (Access Directive) to ensure that users' access to particular types of content or application is not unreasonably restricted.

The first part of the amendment is preserving unrestricted access to content/services/applications, but the last part recalls that there can be limitations. Therefore this amendment is not very good, but can be accepted if limitations are clearly restricted in other amendments like 139/141.

Amendment 108 --

 * Recital 22 a (new) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(22a) Traffic management policies should be defined for 'the purposes of disclosure under this Directive. The' practices embodied in them are fully subject to 'competition scrutiny. '

Reduces traffic management policies to a strictly anti-competitive issue.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 109 +++

 * Recital 22 a (new) tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(22a) Traffic management policies are the rules and guidelines which a network operator has put in place to handle the flow of traffic on the network (i.e. bandwidth management), but they may additionally utilise capabilities installed by the operator to prioritise, block and filter traffic according to pre-set 'criteria. These policies must be able to be justified by a valid' technical reasons such as temporary short-term remedies put in place so as to smooth traffic in cases of acute network congestion or in response to malicious activity threatening network security 'or end-user security. Traffic management policies should be neutral' in respect of content and applications and must not result in the user not being able to access content, services and applications. Operators should in all cases respect fundamental rights and 'freedoms of users. '

More or less our definition of acceptable network management policies.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 110 ++

 * Recital 22 bis (nouveau) tabled by Jacques TOUBON, PPE-DE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(22 bis) La directive 2002/22/CE n'exige pas des fournisseurs qu'ils contrôlent les informations transmises par l'intermédiaire de leurs réseaux, ni qu'ils engagent des poursuites judiciaires à l'encontre de leurs clients en raison d'informations transmises, et ne rend pas les fournisseurs responsables de ces informations. Il appartient aux autorités compétentes d'engager des poursuites pénales.

French translation of amendment 6 of Harbour


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 111 +++

 * Recital 22 b (new) tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(22b) Internet users are entitled to an Internet connection to send and receive content of their own choice, use services and  applications of their own choice, and connect hardware and use software 'of their own choice that does not harm the network. Internet users are' entitled to a connection free from discrimination based on type of application, service or content, or based on sender or receiver address.

More or less our definition of net neutrality.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 113 +

 * Recital 24 tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(24) The availability of transparent, up-to-date and comparable information on offers and services is a key element for consumers in competitive markets where several providers offer services. End-users and consumers of electronic communications services should be able to easily compare the prices of various services and their traffic management policies offered on the market based on information published in an easily accessible form. In order to allow them to make price comparisons easily, national regulatory authorities should be able to require from undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services greater transparency as regards information (including tariffs, consumption patterns, and other relevant statistics) and to ensure that third parties have the right to use publicly available information published by such undertakings', without charge. National regulatory authorities' should also be able to make price guides available, in particular where the market has not provided them free of charge or at a reasonable price. Undertakings should not be entitled to any remuneration for the use of information where it has already been published and thus belongs in the public domain. In addition, end-users and consumers should be adequately informed of the price and the type of service offered before they purchase a service, in particular if a freephone number is subject to additional charges. National regulatory authorities should be able to require that such information is provided generally, and, for certain categories of services determined by them, immediately prior to connecting the call, unless it is otherwise provided for by national law. When determining the categories of call requiring pricing information prior to connection, national regulatory authorities should take due account of the nature of the service, the pricing conditions which apply to it and whether it is offered by a provider who is not a provider of electronic communications services. Without prejudice to Directive 2000/31/EC (Directive on electronic commerce), undertakings should also, if required by Member States, provide to subscribers with public interest information produced by the relevant public authorities regarding, inter alia, the most common infringements and their legal consequences. Significant additional costs incurred by undertakings for dissemination of such information should be agreed between the undertakings and the relevant authorities and met by those authorities.

This is an exact copy of Amendment 7, tabled by the Rapporteur, with the insertion of "and their traffic management policies". It is noteworthy the Rapporteur overwrites his own amendment 7 with amendment 112.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 114 ++

 * Recital 24 a (new) tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(24a) Transparency measures are most effective where disclosure is made both to users and to regulatory authorities, including the  National Regulatory Authorities and where necessary, to the  'BERT/GERT. Member States should ensure therefore that National ' Regulatory Authorities, the Commission and BERT/GERT may require  disclosure of traffic management policies and take appropriate  measures in cases where operators fail to disclose their traffic management policies or where the traffic management policy does not respect the rights of users to access the content, applications 'and services of their choice. Disclosure to regulators should' include the traffic management equipment installed by the operator, when it was first commissioned, where in the network it is deployed, how it is configured, when and under what circumstances it is used, and the criteria for restrictions or limitations on usage by end-users including the thresholds that will trigger limits on users' access. It should, where necessary, disclose specific actions included in the traffic management policy.

Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 115 +++

 * Recital 26 tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(26) A competitive market should ensure that users enjoy the quality of service they require, but in particular cases it may be necessary to ensure that public communications networks attain minimum quality levels so as to prevent degradation of service, the blocking of access and the slowing of traffic over networks. Prioritisation or limitation of traffic must be able to be  justified by a valid technical reason, such as temporary  short-term remedies put in place so as to smooth traffic in cases of   acute network congestion or in response to malicious activity  threatening network security or end-user security, and must not result in the user not being able to access content, services and applications. A minimum quality of service should ensure that users are able to access all content, services and applications of their choice without being hindered,  limited or blocked by the traffic management policies of the network 'operator. Since inconsistent remedies will significantly impair the' achievement of the internal market, the Commission should assess any requirements set by national regulatory authorities for possible regulatory intervention across the Community and, if necessary, adopt technical implementing measures in order to achieve consistent application throughout the Community.

More or less our definition of minimum quality of service.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 116 ---

 * Recital 26 tabled by Jacques TOUBON, PPE-DE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(26) A competitive market should also ensure that users are able to have the quality of service they require, but in particular cases it may be necessary to ensure that public communications networks attain minimum quality levels so as to address unjustified degradation of service, usage limitations and slowing of traffic.

AT&T amendment.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 117
Amendment 118 --- ===


 * Recital 26 a (new) tabled by Zita PLEŠTINSKÁ, PPE-DE, SK, Andreas SCHWAB, PPE-DE, DE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(26a) Directive 2002/22/EC is without prejudice to reasonable network management by providers, for example to address congestion and capacity constraints, to ensure the security of the network and of users and to enable reliable performance of individual services. These practices should not hinder the competitive development of the information society and should respect the requirements set out in articles 20 and 21 of Directive 2002/22/EC.

AT&T amendment.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 124

 * Article 2 – point 2 – point (c) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 2 – point (e) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(e) “traffic management policies” means the procedures put in place by the provider of a public electronic communications service or network in order to measure and control traffic on a network link so as to avoid filling the link to capacity or overfilling the link, which might result in network congestion and poor performance.

This amendments doesn't guarantee network neutrality nor promote network discrimination.


 * Voting recommendation: none.

Amendment 125 ++

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point (b) tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(b) the services provided, including in particular: – information on the traffic management policies operated by the undertaking such that the subscriber is able to make an informed decision as to whether to purchase the service, and/or, where necessary, adjust their behaviour, deactivate the service, 'alter the service criteria or switch networks. Operators shall, where necessary,' disclose specific actions included in the traffic management policy, – whether or not access to emergency services and caller location information are being provided and/or any limitations for provision of emergency services under 'Article 26, - the minimum service quality levels offered, namely the time for the initial connection and, where appropriate, other quality of service parameters, as defined by the national regulatory authorities, - the types of maintenance service offered and customer support services provided, as well as the means of contacting these services, - any restrictions imposed by the provider on the use of terminal equipment supplied;

It is essential the "traffic management policies operated by the undertaking [...]  can be understood by the subscriber.

Amendment 126 --

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point (b) – indent 1 tabled by Jacques TOUBON, PPE-DE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

– information on any relevant limitations imposed by the undertaking, in accordance with national law, on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services,

To be able to distribute information is a fundamental right. Every limitation is relevant. This amendment opens up for both state and corporate cencorship.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 127 +

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point (b) tabled by Bernadette VERGNAUD, PSE, FR, Heide RÜHLE, Verts/ALE, DE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(b) the services provided, including in particular, - whether or not reliable and accurate access to emergency services and caller location information is being provided and/or any limitations for provision of emergency services under Article 26 and/or the possible lack of access in areas not covered by mobile networks, - information on any limitations regarding access to and/or use of services and applications, including information on any traffic management policies which are essential to prevent degradation of service or slowing of traffic over networks and on how these may impact on the delivery of the service, - the minimum service quality levels offered, namely the time for the initial connection and, where appropriate, other quality of service parameters, as defined by the national regulatory authorities, - the types of maintenance service offered and customer support services provided, as well as the means of contacting these services, - any restrictions imposed by the provider on the use of terminal equipment supplied;

The amendement imposes transparency in contracts about any limitation to network neutrality, but it does not define requirements for such discrimination to be reasonable.


 * Voting recommendation: against or add a recital to define reasonable limitations.

Amendment 128 -
(b) the services provided, including in particular - whether or not access to emergency services and caller location information is being provided and/or any limitations for provision of emergency services under Article 26, - information on any other limitations regarding access to and/or use of services and applications, where allowed under national law,  - the minimum service quality levels offered, namely the time for the initial connection and, where appropriate, other quality of service parameters, as defined by the national regulatory authorities, - information on any traffic management policies and on how these may impact on service quality, - the types of maintenance service offered and customer support services provided, as well as the means of contacting these services, - any restrictions imposed by the provider on the use of terminal equipment supplied;
 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 20 – paragraph 1 – point (b) tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

Same remarks as for am. 43.


 * Voting recommendation: against or add a recital to define reasonable limitations.

Amendment 129 ++

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 21 – paragraph 1 tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE

1. Member States shall ensure that undertakings providing connection to a public electronic communications network and/or electronic communications services publish transparent, comparable and up-to-date information on traffic management policies, applicable prices and tariffs and any charges due on termination of a contract and information on standard terms and conditions in respect of access to, and use of, services provided by them to end-users and consumers in accordance 'with Annex II. Such information shall be published in a clear,' comprehensive and easily accessible form and should include when and under what circumstances traffic management policies are implemented, and the criteria and rules implemented by the operator for managing traffic, including the thresholds that will trigger changes in the users' experience of the services. National regulatory authorities may specify additional requirements regarding the form in which such information is to be published.

Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 130 -

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 21 – paragraph 3 tabled by Malcolm HARBOUR, PPE-DE, GB
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

3. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to oblige undertakings providing connection to a public electronic communications network and/or electronic communications services to inter alia: (a) provide applicable tariff information to subscribers regarding any number or service subject to particular pricing conditions; with respect to individual categories of services, national regulatory authorities may require such information to be provided immediately prior to connecting the call; (aa) regularly remind subscribers of any lack of reliable access to emergency services or caller location information in the service they have subscribed to; (b) inform subscribers of any change to limitations regarding access to and/or use of services and applications, where allowed under national law; (ba) provide information on any traffic management policies and on how these may impact on service quality;  (c) inform subscribers of their right to determine whether or not to include their personal data in a directory, and of the types of data concerned, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC (Directive on privacy and electronic communications); and (d) regularly inform disabled subscribers of details of products and services designed for them. If deemed appropriate, national regulatory authorities may promote self‑ or co‑regulatory measures prior to imposing any obligation.

Same remarks as for am. 49.


 * Voting recommendation: against or add a recital to define reasonable limitations.

Amendment 131 ++

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 21 – paragraph 3 tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

3. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to oblige undertakings providing connection to a public electronic communications network and/or electronic communications services to inter alia: (a) provide applicable tariff information to subscribers regarding any number or service subject to particular pricing conditions; with respect to individual categories of services, national regulatory authorities may require such information to be provided immediately prior to connecting the call; (b) inform subscribers of the provider's traffic management policies, and any change thereto, so that subscribers are able to make an informed decision as to whether to to purchase the service, and/or, where necessary, adjust their behaviour, deactivate the service, alter the service criteria 'or switch networks. Operators shall, where necessary, disclose' specific actions included in the traffic management policy; (ba) regularly remind subscribers of any lack of reliable access to emergency services or caller location information in the service to which they have subscribed; (c) inform subscribers of their right to determine whether or not to include their personal data in a directory, and of the types of data concerned, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC (Directive on privacy and electronic communications); and (d) regularly inform disabled subscribers of details of products and services designed for them. If deemed appropriate, national regulatory authorities may promote self- or co-regulatory measures prior to imposing any obligation.

Unsure of whether the wording is efficient against net discrimination, but it the explicit goal of this amendment in its justification.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 132 -

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 21 – paragraph 3 tabled by Jacques TOUBON, PPE-DE, FR
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

3. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to oblige undertakings providing connection to a public electronic communications network and/or electronic communications services to inter alia: (a) provide applicable tariff information to subscribers regarding any number or service subject to particular pricing conditions; with respect to individual categories of services, national regulatory authorities may require such information to be provided immediately prior to connecting the call; (b) inform subscribers of any change to' any relevant limitations imposed by the undertaking, in accordance with national law, on a subscriber's ability to access, use or distribute information or run applications or services; (c) inform subscribers of their right to determine whether or not to include their personal data in a directory, and of the types of data concerned, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC (Directive on privacy and electronic communications); and (d) regularly inform disabled subscribers of details of products and services designed for them. If deemed appropriate, national regulatory authorities may promote self- or co-regulatory measures prior to imposing any obligation.

Every limitation is relevant.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 133 -

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 21 – paragraph 3 tabled by Bernadette VERGNAUD, PSE, FR, Cristian Silviu BUŞOI, ALDE, RO, Heide RÜHLE, Verts/ALE, DE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

3. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to oblige undertakings providing connection to a public electronic communications network and/or electronic communications services to inter alia: (a) provide applicable tariff information to subscribers regarding any number or service subject to particular pricing conditions; with respect to individual categories of services, national regulatory authorities may require such information to be provided immediately prior to connecting the call; (aa) regularly remind subscribers of any lack of reliable access to emergency services or caller location information in the service to which they have subscribed; (b) inform subscribers of any relevant change to the provider's traffic management policies and subsequent possible limitations of access to applications or services; (c) inform subscribers of their right to determine whether or not to include their personal data in a directory, and of the types of data concerned, in accordance with Article 12 of Directive 2002/58/EC (Directive on privacy and electronic communications); and (d) regularly inform disabled subscribers of details of products and services designed for them. If deemed appropriate, national regulatory authorities may promote self or co regulatory measures prior to imposing any obligation.

Every limitation is relevant.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 135 +++

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 1 tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

1. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are, after taking account of the views of interested parties, able to require undertakings that provide publicly available electronic communications networks and/or services to publish equivalent, adequate and up-todate information for end-users on the quality of their services and measures taken to ensure comparable access for disabled end-users 'and to disclose traffic management policies. That information shall, on request, be supplied to the national regulatory authority in advance of its publication. Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to take appropriate measures in cases where operators fail to disclose their traffic management policies  or where the traffic management policy does not respect the rights of users to access the content, 'applications and services of their choice. National' regulatory authorities shall additionally ensure that there is a facility in place by which users can monitor and identify any problems created by traffic management policies in cases where disputes may arise.

Allows to take measures against net discrimination


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 136
Amendment 137 == Amendment 138 --- ===


 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3 tabled by Erika MANN, PSE, DE, Edit HERCZOG, PSE, HU & Zita PLEŠTINSKÁ, PPE-DE, SK, Andreas SCHWAB, PPE-DE, DE & Syed KAMMALL, PPE-DE, UK
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

3. In order to address unjustified degradation of service and hindering or slowing of traffic over networks, Member States shall ensure that national regulatory authorities are able to set minimum quality of service requirements on an undertaking or undertakings providing public communications networks.

AT&T amendment. Who determines what is justified or not? For operators, discrimination could be justified by profit (ie. forbidding VoIP on a mobile operator internet access). This is open door for net discrimination.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 139

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3 a (new) tabled by Bernadette VERGNAUD, PSE, FR, Cristian Silviu BUŞOI, ALDE, RO, Heide RÜHLE, Verts/ALE, DE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

'3a. To ensure quality of services, operators may use traffic' management policies, namely the procedures put in place by the provider in order to measure and control traffic on a network link so as to avoid filling the link to capacity or overfilling the link, which would result in network congestion and poor performance.

Amendment 141

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3 b (new) tabled by Bernadette VERGNAUD, PSE, FR, Heide RÜHLE, Verts/ALE, DE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

'3b. Traffic management policies are deemed appropriate and' reasonable as long as it can be proved that they are not anti-competitive or do not give preferential treatment to the services or applications of the network operators or their commercial partners over the services and applications of other providers.

'''Both amendments are needed for the traffic management policies to be non-discriminatory. Those two amendments work together.'''


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 140 --

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3 b (new) tabled by Cristian Silviu BUŞOI, ALDE, RO
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

'3b. These policies are deemed appropriate and reasonable as long as' it can be proved that they are not anti-competitive and do not hinder the competitive development of the information society.

Weak complement to amendment 139, to reject in favor of 141.


 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 142

 * Article 1 – point 13 amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 22 – paragraph 3 c (new) tabled by Heide RÜHLE, Verts/ALE, DE
 * Net Neutrality/Discrimination

'3c. The minimum quality of services requirements may oblige' operators to use traffic management policies, namely the procedures put in place by the provider in order to  'measure and control traffic on a network link so as to avoid filling the link to capacity or overfilling the link, which would result in network congestion and poor performance.

Just repeats some statements of amendment 139, in order to state that traffic management policies are taken to assure minimum QoS. This does not add any limit to restrictions that ISPs are allowed to take. Therefore this amendment can either be voted or rejected.


 * Voting recommendation: none.

Amendment 146 +++

 * Article 1 – point 21 a (new) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 32 a (new) tabled by Heide RÜHLE, Verts/ALE, DE
 * Fundamental Rights/Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(21a) the following Article shall be inserted: Article 32a Access to content, services and applications Member States shall ensure that any restrictions  to users' rights to access content, services and applications, if they are necessary, shall be implemented by appropriate measures, in accordance with the principles of proportionality, 'effectiveness and dissuasiveness. These measures' shall not have the effect of hindering the development of the information society, in compliance with Directive 2000/31/EC, and shall not conflict with citizens' fundamental rights, including the right to privacy and the right to due process."

repeats amendment 166 of first lecture, and 72 of Harbour
 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 147 ---

 * Article 1 – point 21 a (new) amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 32 a (new) tabled by Jacques TOUBON, PPE-DE, FR
 * Fundamental Rights/Net Neutrality/Discrimination

(21a) the following Article shall be inserted: "Article 32a Member States shall ensure that any restrictions on the rights of users to access content, services and applications, if such restrictions are necessary, are implemented by appropriate measures, in accordance with the principles of proportionality, effectiveness and dissuasiveness. The measures shall be aimed at enhancing the development of the information society, in compliance with the EC legal order, and shall fully respect the fundamental rights protected by the Community legal order, including the right to privacy, the right to property, the right to due process and the right to an effective remedy."'

Attempt to insert right to property and sanction in the fundamental rights.
 * Voting recommendation: against

Amendment 148 +++

 * Article 1 – point 22 – point b amending Directive 2002/22/EC Article 33 – paragraph 3 tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * 3-Strikes

3. Without prejudice to national rules in conformity with Community law promoting cultural and media policy objectives, such as cultural and linguistic diversity and media pluralism, national regulatory authorities and other relevant authorities may promote cooperation between undertakings providing electronic communications networks and/or services and sectors interested in the promotion of  lawful  content in electronic communication networks and services. That cooperation may also include coordination of the public interest information to be provided pursuant to Article 21(4)(a) and Article 20(1).

Deletes the last reference to lawful on which is based the graduated response.


 * Voting recommendation: for

Amendment 150 +++

 * Article 2 – point 6 amending Directive 2002/58/EC Article 6 tabled by Eva-Britt SVENSSON, GUE/NGL, SE
 * Privacy/Personal Data

7. Traffic data may be collected, stored and used in specific cases to the extent strictly necessary to ensure network and information security, as defined by Article 4(c) of Regulation (EC) No 460/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2004 establishing the European Network and Information Security Agency. Traffic data stored pursuant to this paragraph must not be used for any other purpose and must be erased or made anonymous no later than seven days after its collection.

The Council common position on this point would allow the telecommunications industry to collect a potentially unlimited amount of sensitive, confidential communications data including our telephone and e-mail contacts, the geographic position of our mobile phones and the websites we visit on the Internet. Apart from the creation of vast data pools that could go far beyond what is being collected under the directive on data retention, the proposal would also permit the disclosure of traffic data to other companies, government authorities and individuals.

In his opinion of 9 January 2009, the EDPS "recommends to reject this Article". He confirms that "Article 6.6(a) is unnecessary and subject to risk of abuse" and goes on to say: "Any existing or future article is unlikely to remove the obvious risks of an overly broad application of the exception for reasons other than purely security related or by entities that should not be able to benefit from the exception. [...] Taking into account on the one hand the risks that Article 6.6(a) poses to the fundamental right to data protection and privacy of individuals, and on the other hand the fact that, as explained in this Opinion, from a legal point of view, this Article is unnecessary, the EDPS has come to the conclusion that the best outcome would be for the proposed Article 6.6(a) to be deleted altogether."

With amendment 150,
 * retention is limited to "specific cases" and my thus not take place permanently,
 * maximum retention period of seven days is specified, so data may not be stored forever,
 * the disclosure of data to third parties is not covered ("may be collected, stored and used"),
 * data retained for security purposes cannot later be used for other purposes such as disclosure to government authorities (purpose limitation included).

However, even this wording has major downsides:
 * there would be no specification of who may process data, not limited to telecommunications providers,
 * unclear purpose of processing, purpose not specified to be the protection of the provider's own systems,
 * user interest could not outweigh provider interest,
 * member states would not be allowed to protect privacy better.

So MEPs should
 * 1) work towards the tabling of an amendment (e.g. group amendment in plenary) to delete article 2 point 6 of the Council common position altogether,
 * 2) in the meantime, vote for amendment 150 tabled by Ms Svensson in IMCO (vote scheduled for 31 March 2009), and
 * 3) work towards the withdrawal or the rejection of amendment 85 tabled by the rapporteur in IMCO.

For details see joint press release "EU proposal puts confidential communications data at risk" and background paper.


 * Voting recommendation: vote for this amendment and reject amendment 85.