1. Net Neutrality a regulator’s vision February 27 th, 2012 Guillaume Mellier

2. 2 Net neutrality in Europe: the first milestones  The “Telecoms Package” – a framework allowing for flexibility  Not too prescriptive…  While including specific provisions on NN  The EU institutions – taking position on the issue  Commission: no problem at the moment, but acknowledging potential risks  European Parliament: strong supporter of NN principles  Council: also calling for pro-activism  political support for regulators’ work  Ground works by BEREC and national regulators  Building an expertise  Ensuring consistency across the EU

3. 3 ARCEP’s “10 proposals and recommendations” (2010)  Internet access service should observe net neutrality principles, while ISPs can innovate with specialized services 1.Freedom of use and sufficient quality of internet access service as a rule 2.Equivalent treatment between data streams of internet access service as a general rule 3.Traffic management of internet access service should remain in any case : relevant, efficient, proportionate, non-discriminatory between parties, transparent 4.Unrestricted specialized (“managed”) services as long as Internet access not degraded below acceptable level  The regulator needs to foster quality and monitor the market 5.Increased transparency (incl. traffic management & quality of service) 6.Monitoring traffic management 7.Monitoring the quality of the Internet access service 8.Monitoring data interconnection market  Net neutrality is about the whole value chain, not only ISPs 9.Service, application, content vendors play a big role 10.Devices should be looked at, too

4. 4 Focus: traffic management  Frequent practices, varying from security to prioritization of integrated services  No bright line  ARCEP’s five criteria: relevance, proportionality, efficiency, non-discrimination between parties, transparency  Goals matter  Implementation is at least as important  Need for more knowledge: what are ISPs doing?  Hard to say from outside (end users might see [some] consequences, not practices)  National and European questionnaires help  Enforcing the policy  [ competition ]  Transparency  Dispute settlement  [ minimum QoS ]

5. 5 Focus: data interconnection market  A non-regulated, efficient market that has led to global and resilient connectivity  Is there a problem?  Tensions arise, big players impose their conditions  ISPs control access to users; big CAPs are unavoidable; intermediaries face fierce competition  “That’s everyday business, net neutrality is not at stake”  At least, eradicate the lack of clarity and promote objectivity  Monitoring and understanding the market  Prepare for possible dispute settlement  Not a case for regulation at present

6. 6 BEREC: making the framework come to life  BEREC is building up a common understanding of the main challenges and some methodology Interconnection Open discussion in different fora (BEREC, OECD) Outputs to be decided Transparency [Art 21 USD] Guidelines published Dec 2011 70+ responses to the public consultation  Understandability: broad support to develop at European level common frames of reference (terminology, basic parameters)  Comparability: requires direct & indirect approaches, users empowerment, test tools and monitoring On going working group on next steps Quality of service [Art 22 USD] Framework published Dec 2011  QoS / QoE / network performance, triggers Guidelines on the “minimum QoS tool”, for consultation Q3 2012 Traffic management Acceptability of traffic management: a theoretical approach Q2 2012 Investigation questionnaire to operators and civil society (Dec 2011, in coordination with EC), results to be published by April 2012

7. Being proactive, without being unnecessarily intrusive Thank you!