It can take a while depending on the size of the document..please wait
Consultation paper on the evaluation of the application of Regulation (EU) 2015/2120 and the BEREC Net Neutrality Guidelines
2 days left (ends 25 Apr)
LEVEL OF AGREEMENT
MOST DISCUSSED PARAGRAPHS
MOST ACTIVE USERS
Introduction and scope of the consultation
In this paper BEREC invites stakeholders to participate in a public consultation on an evaluation of the application of the BEREC Net Neutrality Guidelines (the “Guidelines”) in the context of the Net Neutrality Regulation (the “Regulation”).
The objective of this consultation is to gather information on how stakeholders have experienced the application of the Regulation, as provided for in the Guidelines, since April 30th 2016.
BEREC realizes the importance many in the public domain attach to expressing their position on the general subject of net neutrality. Yet, in this consultation BEREC focuses on the actual experiences of stakeholders with the application of the current Regulation and Guidelines. It is noted that early 2019 the Regulation itself will be evaluated by the European Commission.
In addition to the general aspects of the application of the Regulation and Guidelines, BEREC is especially interested in the experiences of stakeholders concerning impact of the Guidelines on the adoption of new technologies.
The public consultation is open till 25 April 2018 17:00 CET. During this period, responses can be either:
- send by email to NN-Evaluation-Consultation@berec.europa.eu
- or be posted on https://consultations.berec.europa.eu/en/berec
Your input will be used to prepare for a BEREC Opinion for the European Commission in relation to the mentioned evaluation of the Regulation. BEREC aims at publishing this Opinion at the end of 2018.
Please answer with regard to both national and pan-European practices, where you find such distinction appropriate.
A. General experience with the application of the Regulation and BEREC NN Guidelines
- In your view – have the Guidelines helped NRA´s apply the Regulation in a consistent, coherent and correct way? Please explain.
- Did the Guidelines provide additional clarity regarding how to apply the Regulation? Please explain.
- On which subjects would you expect the Guidelines to be more explicit or elaborated? How should the text of the Guidelines be adapted on these points, in your view. Please explain.
- For ISPs: Did you discontinue certain products or services following the adoption of the Regulation and/or the Guidelines?
- Did the application of the Regulation, or the implementation of the Regulation by the Guidelines, prevent you from launching certain products or services?
- Do you have any additional comments on the application of the Regulation and Guidelines?
B. Definitions (article 2 of the Regulation)
- Do you think that the Guidelines should provide further clarification in relation to the definitions in the Regulation? If yes, please provide concrete suggestions.
C. Commercial practices such as zero-rating (articles 3(1) and 3(2))
- Does the current assessment of zero-rating as recommended in the Guidelines, offer sufficient protection of end-users’ rights as referred to in article 3(1) of the Regulation? Please explain.
- How could the assessment methodology for commercial practices in the Guidelines (ref. in particular to paras 46-48) be improved? Is there a need for more simplification, flexibility and/or more specification? Please provide concrete suggestions.
- In your view, did the assessment methodology for commercial practices in the Guidelines influence the development of new content and applications offered on the internet? Please explain.
- Do you think that the current application of the Regulation and the Guidelines concerning commercial practices, such as zero-rating, sufficiently takes account of possible long term effects of such practices? If not, how could BEREC further facilitate this?
D. Traffic management (article 3(3))
- Is there a need for improvement of the Guidelines concerning reasonable traffic management (ref. in particular to paras 49-75)? If yes, how could this text be improved? Please provide concrete suggestions.