Comment Neelie (Kroes)

Making speeches talk

Comment Neelie
[...] First, we should allow innovation. The new services round the corner depend not just on content, but on high-quality connections. For example, if you've just bought a videoconferencing system, you'll probably also want an internet service that guarantees the right quality, end-to-end. If someone wants to pay extra for that, no EU rules should stand in their way; it's not my job to ban people from buying those services, nor to prevent people providing them. If you don't want to buy them that is also fine, and you should absolutely continue to benefit from the "best efforts internet".
38.7333, -9.15 - Lisbon PORTUGAL
Goncalo Pinheira
The idea that we should not interfere if someone wishes to pay a premium for premium service seems right at heart, but is also very dangerous. Right now, ISPs compete on equal footing for equal service. As soon as a ISP offers a "premium package", its incentive to provide a good service in the base package decreases, since it'd rather people payed for the premium package. If all ISPs do this, there will be no incentive at all to provide good best-effort delivery. Also, there's the very real problem that ISPs are expected to be a "dump pipe" - as such, any actual implementation must NOT provide guarantees for usability of a particular service, but only assure delivery of packets with a certain QoS
Goncalo Pinheira, 05/06/2013 19:02
Chris Marsden
You are confusing innovation with rationing. Deploying fibre is not innovation, it's a 20 year old telco technology originally developed in university labs. The fact that they have not deployed it tells us a great deal about their 'innovation'. The fact that you are defending rationing instead of FRAND treatment tells us a bit more.
Chris Marsden, 07/06/2013 10:12