Proposition 54K0650

Proposition de résolution relative à la protection de l'internet ouvert.

General information ¶

Authors

CD&V Roel Deseyn
MR Gilles Foret
N-VA Inez De Coninck, Peter Dedecker

Submission date

Nov. 19, 2014

Official page

Visit

Status

Adopted

Requirement

Simple

Subjects

EC Directive consumer protection electronic commerce goods and services information network Internet resolution of parliament right to information telecommunications

Voting ¶

Voted to adopt

Groen CD&V Vooruit Ecolo LE PS | SP DéFI ∉ Open Vld N-VA LDD MR PP VB

Abstained from voting

PVDA | PTB

Contact form ¶

Do you have a question or request regarding this proposition? Select the most appropriate option for your request and I will get back to you shortly.

Discussion ¶

July 1, 2015 | Plenary session (Chamber of representatives)

Full source

I am referring to my written report.

Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Speaker Dedecker is absent and that is a pity.

I have repeatedly recalled in the committee that the issue of net neutrality is a democratic, cultural and economic issue. Every citizen must be free to access the information he wants. A neutral Internet is fundamental for innovation and economic value creation.

This resolution is a step forward. It supports an ambitious definition of net neutrality, the same that the European Parliament adopted in April 2014 with a very large majority. A position that is not content with transparency and the invisible hand of the market to regulate a good of general interest. This is exactly what it is about: the internet does not belong to a few private operators; it belongs to all and, as such, it must be regulated in the interest of all.

This mandate given to the Belgian government in the framework of European discussions comes a little late, or even quite too late.

Not later than yesterday, the Council of the European Union and representatives of the European Parliament agreed on a text that, allegedly, should guarantee an open Internet across the continent. Unfortunately, this claim has not long resisted the analysis of all those who have, at some point, turned to this agreement.

Let's go beyond the disappearance of the word "neutrality" or even the permission to practice tariff discrimination.

From now on, a telecom operator will be able to promote any content as long as it designates it as a specialized service since the agreement does not provide absolutely any restriction as to the type of content that specialized services must target.

There is a two-speed internet in Europe. Only major U.S. companies will be able to negotiate the specialized service status with telecom operators.

So why vote on this resolution proposal that aims at preliminary negotiations for this European agreement? For the PS Group, the vote tomorrow will have a new scope. First of all, it is about denouncing the trilogy agreement. With this vote by a very large majority, or even unanimously, as was the case in the committee, Belgium will take a firm position.

The European text is not a compromise, but the abandonment of a right that has become fundamental in our modern societies, namely access to a neutral Internet.

In addition, the European procedure is not finished. Therefore, it is not yet too late – there is always hope in life. In doing so, we call for the abandonment of the open internet aspect of the agreement reached yesterday and to retain only the one concerning the end of roaming. At the moment, only economic interests are concerned. At present, provisions of general interest are never passed at the European level.

Like the United States, we must now see the internet as a good of general interest and clearly separate the infrastructure from the content that passes through it.

Without a surge, Europe will miss its meeting with digital history for giving in, as usual, to the lobbies exercised by telecommunications.

First of all, I would like to congratulate the author of the draft resolution, our colleague Peter Dedecker. As said by Ms. Lalieux, this proposal was voted unanimously in the committee. The author managed to submit his proposal in a perfect timing. Two years ago, the European Commission made a decision on this issue.

In addition, I will be much less vindicative than Mrs. Lalieux. The progress is, in my opinion, significant. Furthermore, the resolution proposal that we adopted in a committee is in line with the agreement reached on Tuesday between the Parliament and the European Council. This agreement has been reached at the most appropriate decision-making level. In fact, as we have always said, in order for the decision to be the most decisive, it had to intervene at the European level. It will, in any case, allow Internet users to have free access to the content of their choice. It will no longer be possible to unfairly block or slow down certain uses of the Internet. Finally, the granting of a paid priority treatment will not be allowed, while ⁇ ining, of course, strictly framed exceptions of general interest.

I think this is a positive first step. No, this committee does not give in to the interests of telecommunications. You know, Madame Lalieux, it is already a significant step forward to be able to come to an agreement at European level on this matter. This is a step. Of course, the interests of consumers and users will have to be looked after so that both of them can evolve in a free internet and a free society.

The Liberal Party will vote in favour of the resolution tomorrow. I hope you will do the same.

I would like to thank the authors of this resolution.

I would like to answer my colleague Foret. It is a shame that we do not have a real debate about net neutrality because it is a fundamental issue for the future of the internet. Europe has totally missed the fact on Tuesday... In addition, they don’t even talk about net neutrality, they talk about an open internet. The United States has gone much further. The European Parliament has gone much further. And today, telecom operators have negotiated roaming against net neutrality. It was clear: the operators did not want both. Roaming has won, neutrality has lost. It is time to mobilize. Many people have campaigned for net neutrality. Mobilization is necessary and necessary.

We will, of course, vote on this resolution because it is a strong message that we are sending to the government. And the government will not be able to accept the regulation that the Commission is preparing if we vote on this resolution tomorrow. One thing is clear: today, there is nothing in the European regulation. We can do what we want, the largest operators who can pay will obviously be advantageous in terms of the passage of infrastructure. It is a shame for Europe, for start-ups, for the cultural and economic added value that net neutrality could create. Today, we really miss the car, at least at the level of Europe. I hope that this will be blocked at the level of European states.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not being present at the start of the discussion of the resolution, which I signed with. The head of staff, Peter Dedecker, also asked me to apologize to him.

Mrs Lalieux, we think it is a positive proposal and we think it is a solution. On the request of Mr Dedecker, I would like to thank all colleagues, both in the majority and in the opposition, for their constructive and open cooperation. With results, because yesterday an agreement was reached in the European Council, the European Parliament and the European Commission, which is consistent with our resolution.