The vote on the draft law on the protection of socialist Net neutrality, discussed in plenary on Thursday morning, was postponed to March 1, following the protest procedure of the vote requested by the government. The bill on Net Neutrality, the principle that the content flow without any discrimination based on their type, origin or destination, will therefore be only one vote.
The bill, filed by the member Christian Paul, laid down the principle of a broad definition of this principle in the law, as with prior "prohibition of discrimination related to content, issuers or recipients of digital data exchange ". The text also provided to give the courts power to decide who they were removed by law Loppsi 2 for filtering or limiting access to sites and services.
Section 4 of the text provides that a "prohibition or restriction of access can only be ordered if it has no impact on trade of digital data other than those directly affected," an article to prohibit returning systems widespread screening of the Web - including the first tests, including Australia, have shown to be causing a general slowdown in Internet access.
"If I understand correctly, there are the partisans of freedom - you - and to freedom. What cartoon!" Eric Besson has prevailed at the podium during the debates. The minister was briefing a week ago his own conception of Net neutrality, expressing sympathy for sprains practices to the general principle for technical needs in order to "guarantee a minimum quality of service for priority services", including telephony and IPTV.
For Christian Paul, if the traffic control tools can be useful, it is necessary to regulate strictly. Castigating members of the majority "followers declared or discrete law of the jungle" who think that "more neutral, and therefore more control, affect the market," Socialist MP called a sparse Chamber (21 members, including 11 from the opposition) to make Net neutrality "principle, not the exception." His chances of winning the vote are low: The government has issued a negative opinion on the whole text. 
The bill, filed by the member Christian Paul, laid down the principle of a broad definition of this principle in the law, as with prior "prohibition of discrimination related to content, issuers or recipients of digital data exchange ". The text also provided to give the courts power to decide who they were removed by law Loppsi 2 for filtering or limiting access to sites and services.
Section 4 of the text provides that a "prohibition or restriction of access can only be ordered if it has no impact on trade of digital data other than those directly affected," an article to prohibit returning systems widespread screening of the Web - including the first tests, including Australia, have shown to be causing a general slowdown in Internet access.
"If I understand correctly, there are the partisans of freedom - you - and to freedom. What cartoon!" Eric Besson has prevailed at the podium during the debates. The minister was briefing a week ago his own conception of Net neutrality, expressing sympathy for sprains practices to the general principle for technical needs in order to "guarantee a minimum quality of service for priority services", including telephony and IPTV.
For Christian Paul, if the traffic control tools can be useful, it is necessary to regulate strictly. Castigating members of the majority "followers declared or discrete law of the jungle" who think that "more neutral, and therefore more control, affect the market," Socialist MP called a sparse Chamber (21 members, including 11 from the opposition) to make Net neutrality "principle, not the exception." His chances of winning the vote are low: The government has issued a negative opinion on the whole text.
- California Supreme Court will decide key issue in same-sex-marriage legal fight (16/02/2011)
- Calif Supreme Court won't block Proposition 14 (16/12/2010)
- Gov. Brown appointee was brains behind PG&E's Prop. 16 (06/01/2011)
- California Supreme Court Takes Up Proposition 8 Standing Issue (17/02/2011)
- Proposition 8: California Supreme Court Agrees To Rule On Gay Marriage Ban Defense (16/02/2011)
No comments:
Post a Comment