http://eursoc. com/news/ fullstory. php/aid/2714/ The_EU_Blog_ Wars_Have_ Begun.html
The EU Blog Wars Have Begun
By EURSOC Two

The EU gets tough on blogs

England Expects, the leading Eurosceptic "insider's blog", is no more.

Blogger Gawain Towler was the subject of complaints for breaching the EU
Parliament's code of conduct and threatened with a loss of his livelihood (he is
Press officer of the UK delegation to the Ind/Dem Group, the UK Independence
Party, and as such an employee of the EU) if he continued to blog.

Gawain admits he was in breach of the code of conduct, though as Press Officer
for an anti-EU party, "My job is to bring the institutions into disrepute, which
I am doing, well if I am any good I should be doing."

It does seem that bloggers outside EU offices are safe, for the time being. MEPs
on Thursday rejected a call by Estonian MEP Marianne Mikko "for full
clarification of the legal status of webblog authors, disclosure of bloggers'
interests and the voluntary labelling of blogs" - instead, they voted for what
the EU Observer is calling "much softer language" - "an open discussion on all
issues relating to the status of weblogs."

The site reports that Ms Mikko's recommendations had been supported by MEPs
across the political spectrum when fed through committees. A recent European
Commission report leaked earlier this month said that the EU was "losing the
battle for hearts and minds" partly because of the activities of anti-EU
bloggers. The recent defeat of the Lisbon Treaty in the Irish referendum led
Eurocrats to study blog activity in the Republic; they concluded that
Eurosceptic blogs, some by anonymous sources, outnumbered pro-treaty blogs. Of
course the fact that the main Irish newspapers were overwhelmingly pro-Lisbon
didn't seem to worry them unduly.

"Blogging is also seen as an anti-establishment activity," the report concluded,
complaining that "the quality of debate has suffered" as a result of blog
dissent attracting the attention of readers from TV and radio.

Bloggers anonymous and otherwise have good reason to be delighted to have proved
a thorn in the EU's side on this and other issues. The mainstream media on
continental Europe is increasingly docile: Blogs offer the only real dissent in
some countries. Even in Britain, where Eurosceptic newspapers enjoy a large
market share, the reporting of EU issues is feeble: Dedicated Eurosceptic
bloggers like Richard North spend almost as much effort correcting false
Eurosceptic reporting as they do criticising the EU itself.

Bloggers may have escaped the scrutiny of Ms Mikko and her snoops for now,
though there is nothing to stop her creating a secret EU taskforce to track down
and discredit bloggers she disapproves of. In the longer term, moves towards
regulation enjoy support in sometimes unlikely places.

Journalists are increasingly stung by dissenting bloggers. Once, columnists and
hacks could thunder their views from the comments pages, untroubled by the
common herd. With the arrival of "have your say" boxes in online editions, the
authority of official columnists has been fatally undermined.

The Guardian's Polly Toynbee attracts a swarm of "pedants" (her description) who
correct her basic economics after every column (Tim Worstall is one of the best
offenders). George Monbiot and Seumas Milne are also eviscerated by their online
critics. Right-wing columnists aren't immune.

So, it should come as no surprise that a Guardian columnist should complain
about the "lies and deceit" the web encourages: "We may soon have to consider
devising controls on entry, though what form they'll take is not easy to
envisage. It is possible that we will find out, in five or 10 or 20 years, that,
in the internet, we have created a monster we cannot tame, whose capacity for
doing harm exceeds any good it once brought", writes Marcel Berlins. Janet Daley
wrote a similar piece in the Telegraph calling for an end to anonymous
commenting and blogging. As a supposed liberal, she should know better.

It all seems so 2004 to talk about the power (or, in EU terms, the danger) of
bloggers. Has it taken so long for Europe to catch up? This belated recognition
of the power of individual voices in new media isn't celebrated in centralising
Europe as it was in the United States.

US bloggers had the thrill of throwing spears into the furry hide of the
American mainstream media, attacking its obsessive program of spin, bias and
news management. In Europe, however, the game is bigger: The EU itself has
decided that bloggers pose a threat to its status and even existence.

As the Telegraph's Brussels commentator Bruno Waterfield puts it,

"The EU blog wars have begun. The Commission and Brussels institutions know it.
The next battle between them and us, establishment and anti-establishment,
official and unofficial is only a matter of time. What are they going to do
about it? Is the EU ready? Are you ready?"

http://euobserver. com/9/27859? print=1

Net neutrality under threat as EU nears agreement on telecoms

LEIGH PHILLIPS

26.03.2009 @ 17:24 CET

EUOBSERVER / BRUSSELS - With MEPs and European Union member states
just inches away from clinching a deal on a sweeping revision of EU
telecommunications rules, one major issue remains the sticking point:
whether the flow of information on the internet will remain neutral or
be split, with some data being privileged over other data.

Supporters of net neutrality say that the EU is heading towards a
two-tiered internet (Photo: Leigh Phillips)

Internet innovators, from Google to Skype to web-based start-ups are
afraid that in the rush to get a deal on a telecoms package through
the European institutions before the June parliamentary elections,
so-called net neutrality is being left by the wayside.

Currently, wherever data comes from, whether from a silver-surfing
Latvian granny blogging about her favourite traditional recipes or a
multinational corporate content provider, the packets of information
are treated equally, or neutrally, hence ‘net neutrality'.

Amendments to a proposal on the minimum levels of service provision by
network operators backed by some centre-right MEPs however would
permit telecoms companies and internet service providers to block or
degrade some of the data passing through its lines while privileging
other data.

Opponents of the amendments, largely from the left and green corners
of the house, fear that this would instantly deliver two or more tiers
to the internet, with some providers paying premium fees to prioritise
their data.

The big content producers and service providers would be able to
eclipse smaller publications and tiny internet start-ups.

Moreover, telecoms and ISPs may choose to block or otherwise restrict
the data of providers of competing services or competitors or their
partners.

Not co-incidentally, the provision of free or extremely cheap internet
telephony from companies such as Skype, are the telcos' major
competitors. Indeed, analysts believe internet telephony is digging
the grave of the large telcos.

Internet search giant Google also opposes the amendments. "We could
easily pay any additional premiums, but that's not the point. It's a
point of principle. We started out as a small company. We wouldn't be
able to do the same thing now, if this passes."

Jean-Jacques Sahel of Skype told EUobserver: "In a time of economic
crisis, the EU should be enabling this sector to be more competitive
and innovative as possible and this is going in the opposite
direction. It protects the big boys and shuts out the small-time
innovators."

Supporters of the amendments, including European telcos such as
Telefonica and Orange, but also, crucially, US telcos AT&T and
Verizon, for their part back a hands-off regulatory approach, saying
that competition is enough to sort out any problems that may arise.

They also argue that any such protection of net neutrality inhibits
their ability to co-ordinate traffic flows and guarantee quality of
service. Many new video and gaming service suck up a lot of bandwidth,
they say, arguing that data needs to be managed and prioritised so
that internet provision to users is not diminished.

Furthermore, the additional revenues from preferred access fees could
finance development of advanced new networks and other innovative
services.

This approach is backed by the European Commission, which argues that
if consumers feel their content is somehow being compromised, they
will switch to other providers.

At the same time, according to sources close to the discussions, the
UK and France do not favour net neutrality - the UK believing, similar
to the commission, that competition alone is sufficient, and France
supporting any moves that it believes will enable it to crack down on
copyright infringement.

The debate has sparked off a furious round of lobbying, particularly
from American firms.

US President Barack Obama made net neutrality a key issue while on the
campaign trail, and at the beginning of March appointed Julius
Genachowski, a strong backer of net neutrality, as the country's top
telecommunications regulator. The big US telcos see the writing on the
wall, and so the battlefield has shifted across the Atlantic.

"If they can deliver a result here in Europe that goes their way, this
is something they can use to pressure policymakers with back in the
US," said Mr Sahel.

Negotiations over the telecoms package between the parliament, the
commission and the Council have all but concluded apart from haggling
over the net neutrality issue, which dominated discussions between the
three parties on Tuesday.

Compromise texts currently being floated from the parliament and being
considered on Thursday evening appear to have caved into the
anti-net-neutrality stance as MEPs pick their battles and choose other
issues to make a stance over.

Further discussions are expected to take place on Monday night ahead
of twin votes on the topic in the parliament's internal market and
industry committees on 31 March. The full sitting of the house will
consider the matter on 22 April.

© 2009 EUobserver.com. All rights reserved. Printed on 27.03.2009.