"Internet Access is a Fundamental Right"

Not my words, but those of a certain Viviane Reding (NB: MS Word document):

The fourth element I would like to underline is the recognition of the right to Internet access. The new rules recognise explicitly that Internet access is a fundamental right such as the freedom of expression and the freedom to access information. The rules therefore provide that any measures taken regarding access to, or use of, services and applications must respect the fundamental rights and freedoms of natural persons, including the right to privacy, freedom of expression and access to information and education as well as due process.

Surprising news that Amendment 138 was put *back* in its original, stronger form, is welcome indeed, although it looks like the technicalities of net neutrality were beyond the MEPs. Still, kudos to the latter for standing up against the "three strikes" legislation: it's a good start, and an excellent sign for the future.

Follow me on Twitter @glynmoody.

Urgent: Please Write to your MEPs about Amendment 138

Sorry, it's time to get those virtual quills out, and to write to your MEPs. There's a crucial vote coming up in the next couple of days that may see net neutrality killed in Europe thanks to the British and French governments. La Quadrature du Net has the details; here's my letter:

I am writing to ask you to urge your colleagues, particularly those on the ITRE committee, to vote in favour of amendment 138/46 to the Telecoms Package, and not to allow it to be deleted or watered down in any way – for example, by making it an indicative recital instead of an article.

As a journalist who has been writing about the Internet since 1994, I know how important it is that the connection is provided without any technical restrictions. This is the only way that innovations can emerge – indeed, the British inventor of the Web, Sir Tim Berners-Lee, has said that if restrictions of the kind that the striking of amendment 138/46 will allow were in place back in 1989, the Web would never have taken off. This means that if the amendment is dropped or weakened, Europe may well miss out on the next Internet revolution – hardly what the European Union is seeking to do with its wider support for innovation.

To its great credit, the European Parliament has consistently fought to retain this protection for users, and I urge you and your colleagues to continue to stand up for European citizens who are being sidelined by the proposal from some governments to drop amendment 138/46.

Please send your own variation before tomorrow evening. Remember: it's *your* Internet they want to ruin.

Amendment 138 Goes "Poof!"

But that's not too bad an outcome, because it seems to have taken most of the "three strikes" nonsense with it, as this full explanation makes clear:

Looking at the final versions of the five amended EU Directives that form the Telecoms Package, it seems that yes, Amendment 138 (which made sanctions against 'unlawful content' subject to due process of law) has indeed disappeared. But so have some elements of another part of the Package that said that national telecoms regulators should regulate lawful and unlawful content. What was particularly worrying about those provisions was that they referred to another part of the Package that mandated co-operation between national regulators and telecoms industry providers - i.e. ISPs and the big telecoms carriers.

Of course, it ain't over until it's over....

Save Our Amendment 138

As I wrote below, the Telecoms Package is still with us, and there is still the threat that the crucial Amendment 138, which ensures that there is due judicial oversight, will be deleted. Now, then, is the time to start writing some emails to the ministers concerned, whose addresses in the UK are:

mpst.carter@berr.gsi.gov.uk, mpst.vadera@berr.gsi.gov.uk

Here's what I've just sent:

I writing to in connection with the EU Telecoms Package. In particular, I would like to urge you to ensure that Amendment 138 is not deleted or altered substantively. I believe this is important for four reasons.

First, there is a fundamental issue of law here: that punishments should not be imposed “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” as the Amendment puts it. To remove or nullify this Amendment would be to signal that the commercial interests of a group of lobbyists supersedes a citizen's basic right to justice.

Secondly, as you know, the Amendment was introduced and passed after a full debate in the European Parliament. For the Amendment to be dropped or rendered void now would be a clear signal that democratic processes are irrelevant within the inner circle of European ministers. At a time when the European Union is struggling to establish its legitimacy with citizens in Europe, this would again send an appallingly negative signal to ordinary people that could have serious repercussions.

Thirdly, at a time when the British Government is rightly promoting the idea of e-government, and the ability of British citizens to access critically important parts of the democratic system via the Internet, it is self-defeating to introduce the disproportionate punishment of being banned from that same Internet. The Internet is becoming as necessary to modern life as electricity or running water, and nobody would suggest withdrawing these from a criminal, however heinous the crime.

Finally, it is worth noting that introducing such Internet bans would, in any case, have almost no effect on the exchange of copyright materials. An external hard disc with a storage capacity of 1 terabyte – 1000 gigabytes – now costs about £100. On this can be stored around 100,000 Mp3 files. Already, it is becoming common for young people to take such hard discs to parties where they swap music amongst themselves. If the “three strikes” law is introduced, it will simply encourage more people to buy such drives, and to swap not hundreds of files but hundreds of thousands of files at a time: it will actually make the problem worse.

For all these reasons, I urge you to ensure that Amendment 138 remains in the Telecoms Package unaltered.