×

Announcing: Slashdot Deals - Explore geek apps, games, gadgets and more. (what is this?)

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

UK May Kill the EU's Net Neutrality Law

samzenpus posted about 6 months ago | from the hanging-on-by-a-thread dept.

EU 341

An anonymous reader writes "The U.K. government is planning on vetoing the E.U. legislation that enforces net neutrality under the guise of 'won't anyone think of the child pornography blocking?' again. From the article: ' It’s a surprising turn of events. Just last month, the European Parliament voted to place the principles of net neutrality into law. However, before it becomes law throughout Europe, each member country must also pass the legislation. On Thursday, the British government indicated it may veto it instead. At issue is a new provision that critics argue would restrict the British government’s “ability to block illegal material.” The amendment made it so that only a court order would allow for the banning of content, and not a legislative provision, as originally proposed, according to RT. “We do not support any proposals that mean we cannot enforce our laws, including blocking child abuse images,” a government spokesperson told BuzzFeed.'"

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Good (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036487)

We don't need net neutrality laws in the UK. We have real competition, everyone has the choice of hundreds of different ISPs.

Re:Good (4, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#47036607)

We don't need net neutrality laws in the UK. We have real competition, everyone has the choice of hundreds of different ISPs.

Many of those ISPs are just reselling BT bandwidth. If BT throttles certain sites all these will be effected.

Re:Good (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036789)

No, they'll be affected. [diffen.com]

Re:Good (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 6 months ago | (#47036803)

BT wholesale has a monopoly and is regulated as such. The price they can charge is government regulated so they couldn't simply start charging content providers etc. I'm not suggesting that the UK wouldn't be better off with net neutrality enshrined in law, but the current set-up with BT wholesale is actually pretty good for consumers.

Re:Good (5, Interesting)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 6 months ago | (#47036835)

The price may be regulated, but the qualitiy of service appears not to be. Service quality is diabiolical - I mean service in the meaning of "what happens whyen you call to report a fault". They threaten to bill you a massive call out charge if the fault is "your responisibility" and frequently clear the fault and then claim "no fault found" - often when said fault is that they reconfigured the exchange without informing you.

They refuse to give technical answers to technical questions even in the (unlikely) event that they can understand expressions like "static IP" and "DNS lookup" they persist in attempting to use dumbed down expressions to avoid using technical terms - thus ensuring that their words do not ahve any useful meaning.

In short, if they were not a monopoly, they would not last a week.

Disclaimer: I had a broadband problem last week - reported it - NFF, but problem gone. Repeatedly threatened with GBP220 call out charge. Process took three hours.

Re:Good (1)

iserlohn (49556) | about 6 months ago | (#47036893)

I've never been threatened with a call-out charge by Virgin Media (but their billing practises it awful, such as overbilling people with old plans and being anal retentative when questioned). However, BT threatened me with a call-out charge once on a problem with my PSTN (ie. Plain Ole Telephone) service. I insisted they sent out an engineer and in the end it turned out to be a problem with the line card my line was connected to at the exchange. So, yes, in the end they fixed it and, no, I didn't get charged.

Re:Good (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036807)

I Use a small local ISP that provide me with a gigabit line from BTs exchanges. there is no throttling/TBP blockade/filtering as you get with BT broadband.
Doesn't mean there wont be in the future, but i was under the impression this was provided by OpenReach who were split off from BT some time ago.

Poms are weak arseholes (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036491)

As an Australian, I have nothing but contempt for the British. They are a nation of shopkeepers.

Re:Poms are weak arseholes (4, Insightful)

coastwalker (307620) | about 6 months ago | (#47036625)

I am one and I agree. We have Chav politics for Chav people.

The place is run by the tabloid press and whatever the latest Witch hunt happens to be. It suits the wealthy for the plebs to be at each others throats demanding jack boots on their own freedom. Bread and circuses.

You couldn't make it up - Foaming mob demanding the death of Pediatricians force Government to disconnect the internet and replace it with Disney, Netflix and Sesame Street.

Having said that, the enlightened Australian equivalent has already installed their own great firewall of China "The web filter will also block access to websites about politically sensitive issues which have changing criminality statuses e.g., euthanasia and abortion".

Enjoy your totalitarian prison convict.

Re:Poms are weak arseholes (2)

Zembar (803935) | about 6 months ago | (#47036837)

You couldn't make it up - Foaming mob demanding the death of Pediatricians

I'm pretty sure you're making that bit up though, or the NHS is much worse than I thought.

Re:Poms are weak arseholes (2)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#47036887)

Re:Poms are weak arseholes (1)

Zembar (803935) | about 6 months ago | (#47036925)

Wow.. I wouldn't want to be a pedestrian walking through that neighbourhood.

Re:Poms are weak arseholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036911)

It's not made up [theguardian.com] , but the NHS probably is far worse than you think.

Re:Poms are weak arseholes (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036635)

As an Australian, I have nothing but contempt for the British. They are a nation of shopkeepers.

As opposed to a nation of sheep-shaggers

Re:Poms are weak arseholes (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036841)

As an Australian, I have nothing but contempt for the British. They are a nation of shopkeepers.

As opposed to a nation of sheep-shaggers

A nation of criminals. It's where the British Empire send all its indesirables. Down under.
No wonder they ended up so fucked up.

Re:Poms are weak arseholes (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036711)

They are a nation of shopkeepers.

Rather that, than a nation of shoplifters...

what makes illegal things illegal (5, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | about 6 months ago | (#47036503)

Is a blockage going to help the ultimate objective, that is to stop crime? Does it not drive criminals underground in many cases?
Oh wait, stopping crime is not the ultimate objective, control of communication is. Go ahead.

Re:what makes illegal things illegal (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036699)

This is the problem every time "protect the children" comes up. It's never about protecting it them, it's about censorship. Yes child porn exists and yet blocking the images just drives it harder underground making it harder to find those committing the crimes to prosecute. Many countries need to do a 180 on censorship laws or anything considered "regulation" of internet content because "no blocking of legal content" is the same as "block all torrents, porn and questionable photoshops" It just is not enforceable as a grey area, either the political idiots pushing for such laws get a full blown "block all torrents and porn" law which means they can block anything and everything (See how Canada considers Japanese ero manga/anime equivalent to child abuse images) even if there was no person harmed in producing it.

As much as some people don't like the "freedom of speech" aspect of American law because it allows one to promote obscenity and criminal activity, that law also saves a lot of controversial topics from being squashed in the name of Ayn Rand style deregulation

Re:what makes illegal things illegal (5, Informative)

geniice (1336589) | about 6 months ago | (#47036769)

You are ignoring the history. The internet watch foundation (IWF)started off as an attempt to target child abuse hosted in the UK. Not even a government action. It was the police that made it clear to a group of ISPs that they would do something if child abuse image weren't removed from certain UK servers. Thus ISPs set of the IWF was set up to handle reports and forward them for take-down.

The UK's filtering system has an even odder history. Neither the government nor the police asked for it. BT decided to develop the system (cleanfeed) pretty much of their own imitative then pressure the other ISPs into setting up something similar.

None of this was sold as protecting children since it was never sold. Until the IWF blocked an image on wikipedia public awareness of their activities was pretty much nill.

Re:what makes illegal things illegal (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036927)

Many countries need to do a 180 on censorship laws or anything considered "regulation" of internet content because "no blocking of legal content" is the same as "block all torrents, porn and questionable photoshops"

I think that is the wrong way to think about it.
If you really want to stop censorship you have to teach people that censorship isn't about preventing some people from speaking their opinion, it is about preventing you from hearing it.
Everyone is free to say what they want, as long as no-one is there to hear it.

When people realize that censorship exists, not to stop the nutjobs from having their ideas, but because you can't be trusted to select what thoughts to accept and what to reject we might see people thinking of censorship as something bad.

Censorship is as close as we get to thought control with current technology.

Why are they in the EU again? (5, Informative)

prefec2 (875483) | about 6 months ago | (#47036507)

The British government does not want anything which has to do with the EU, especially when it comes to human rights. Lately, they opposed the European human rights declaration. Now that! They do not want to tax their financial sector, so they can pay back all the money the states had to spend to stabilize the economy. If they really do not want to be in the EU. Then fuck off and leave. If the only interest is a trade union. We can negotiate one. But please do not hold back the other nations. Thanks.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036547)

Oddly enough, the UK is one of the very few countries (if not the only one) that has to obey rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, because they decided so themselves.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (4, Insightful)

Keyboard Rage (3448471) | about 6 months ago | (#47036549)

The UK, just like currently the Netherlands, wants all of the advantages of the EU without any of the negatives. So they like receiving money and being able to invest their own money in anything in Europe that will bring their own country more money, but think all of that should come free of charge.

Even better, all other EU countries should pay the UK and the Netherlands for being so nice to the rest of the EU. Think of the children!

I wish that the politicians with these stances (usually right-wing and/or populists) took the advice they so like to give to unwanted foreigners (anything Muslim/Arab, Greeks, Eastern Europeans (unless they can use them as slave-labor)) to go away and followed it themselves. The world would be a better place.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036593)

The UK contributes more to the EU then it gets back in rebates and grants combined, so you're "they like receiving money" claim is nonsense.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036737)

More reason for them to leave, right? Fuck off and become the 51st state.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036757)

The UK contributes more to the EU then it gets back in rebates and grants combined, so you're "they like receiving money" claim is nonsense.

The amount of trade the UK does with the EU outweighs any deficit in rebates and grants they get. If you want to leave the EU over rebates and grants you'd be sacrificing a pound to save a penny. The UK may whine on endlessly about leaving the EU but the extent of their trade with the common market makes that an impractical idea to say the least.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036775)

Are you seriously implying that only EU member states may trade with other EU member states?

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036831)

It's easier, dumb-ass.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036905)

Are you seriously implying that only EU member states may trade with other EU member states?

Are you seriously implying that border controls don't make imports more difficult ?

Are you seriously implying that custom duty will not make imports more expensive ?

Are you seriously thinking that if the UK leaves the EU, both of the above will not make UK exports to the EU much more expensive, and hence the UK will export LESS to the EU?

Are you seriously that blind?

Both companies and people in the EU will look to do bussiness with partners stil in the EU, instead of with the UK.
Any treaty negotiated between the EU and a third party will not apply to the UK any longer, and will need to be renegotiated with the UK, which will be in a less advantageous position, as it represents far less GBP/EUR/USD than the full EU block.

If the UK leaves, both the EU and the UK lose (politically and economically), but I would guess the UK stands to lose more.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036871)

This is silly, there not going to suddenly be massive trade tarriffs, france exports a great deal of it's agriculture to the UK and this won't stop.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036651)

So they like receiving money and being able to invest their own money in anything in Europe that will bring their own country more money, but think all of that should come free of charge.

Even better, all other EU countries should pay the UK and the Netherlands for being so nice to the rest of the EU.

I don't know what information you're basing these statements on. The UK's financial contribution to the EU is certainly higher than the contrary.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036825)

If you would do some research, you would discover that the Netherlands and the UK are some of the top contributors to the EU per capita in relation to EU spending on these countries. In other words, these countries contribute much more to the EU than they receive in subsidies and other monetary benefits from the EU. To suggest we are looking for a free lunch is either ignorant or dishonest, when other countries in the south and east benefit much more from it than we do.

Personally, I do not feel so bad about this redistribution of wealth. The value of the EU lies in more than only economic prosperity. We haven't warred among ourselves in almost 70 years, which is quite an achievement for such a melting pot of different nations and cultures. The EU was probably a large factor in that.

I guess that means I am pro EU. That does not mean I approve of everything the EU does. The fact that we spend so much is just another reason we should be critical and hold them accountable for bad policy. Leaving the EU solves nothing and would only replace the current problems with other, larger ones.

Sincerely, A Dutchman.

Sources:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8036097.stm#start
http://public.tableausoftware.com/shared/B8D43MBKQ?:display_count=yes

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036577)

Correction:

We had our own human rights laws before the EU decided it wanted some too.
We don't want to tax our financial sector to pay for the EUs - we did not receive bailouts from the EU.
We don't, as a rule, want to be part of the European *Union* - we join the Common Market, later know as the European Economic Community.
We want "just a trade union". The rest of Europe *won't* negotiate one.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036687)

Whoooooosh. Don't get him in the way with facts.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (5, Informative)

jonwil (467024) | about 6 months ago | (#47036667)

Its not just human rights, the UK have strongly resisted joining Schengen migration laws and allowing free movement of people and goods between the UK and other EU countries.

I think the other EU countries need to start getting together and saying to the UK that they need to either adopt ALL of the EU rules (including the Euro, Schengen, Net Neutrality, human rights etc etc) or get out of the EU completly and fend for themselves.

But the UK will never adopt things like Schengen because it would remove customs and import checks at UK borders (including airports, seaports and the Channel Tunnel crossings) and make it almost impossible to stop the flow of cheap booze, cheap fags, illegal immigrants and all the other stuff you see on those "UK border agency" TV shows from comming into the country.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

geniice (1336589) | about 6 months ago | (#47036779)

During recent EU enlargments the UK has allowed free movement from those countries before other major EU states. The plus side is that we now have a lot more poles that we did a few years ago.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 6 months ago | (#47036795)

The Euro is an awful, awful thing. It was oringinally designed to only be utilised by strong, economically secure countries like Germany; Six or seven at most. There are now 18 countries using the euro as their official currency, some of them in financial ruin (Greece, Portugal, Ireland...). Hell, the criteria for entry weren't even applied to everyone equally, so some of those countries shouldn't have joined in the first place!

I'm all for everything else the EU has implemented, but the Euro is an abomination; It should have been chucked over the cliff edge at birth.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (5, Informative)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 6 months ago | (#47036875)

The main disadvantage of joining the Euro is that it is much harder for the politicians to cook the books. The Germans have a particular detestation of cooked books, since they nearly starved to death as a consequence of a particularly bad episode. The Greeks (amongst others) are currently discovering that cooking the books results in a diet of cooked books, and its not very tasty. However, they have not yet realised that "it was the cook wot done it".

You appear to have had a bit too much Kool-ade.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036881)

The Euro is an awful, awful thing. It was oringinally designed to only be utilised by strong, economically secure countries like Germany; Six or seven at most. There are now 18 countries using the euro as their official currency, some of them in financial ruin (Greece, Portugal, Ireland...). Hell, the criteria for entry weren't even applied to everyone equally, so some of those countries shouldn't have joined in the first place!

I'm all for everything else the EU has implemented, but the Euro is an abomination; It should have been chucked over the cliff edge at birth.

The Euro was/is a good thing. It was just used wrongly. You see the end game was always to have a European political union. But there were 2 ways to achieve that : political integration first and with that would also come economic integration but this would takes several decades to achieve naturally. Or do the contrary, that is to say use the common market that was already there and a single currency as the beachhead to a political integration. It is obvious the second route was taken and it was a bad choice. That is why all the EU leaders will sacrifice anything and anyone (as you see the dispair and misery in countries like Greece, Portugal, Ireland, Italy...) to the altar of the Euro. They know if the Euro fails, it's Europe's political integration that fails. And we're back to square one. Our so-called politicians should have taken the first road. Political then economic integration. Yes it would have taken 50-70 more years but at least we wouldn't have ruined half of Europe in the process.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (3, Interesting)

iserlohn (49556) | about 6 months ago | (#47036929)

The problem is that the Euro is a monetary union without a proper fiscal (and by-proxy political) union. The US has a strong central government and can fix these imbalances by, amongst other things, spending federal dollars in the states with weaker economies. The Euro does not have a proper mechanism to do this and you can see the stronger export economies reaping the rewards of Euro membership (looking at you Germany). A lot of big-ticket items (such as German cars and second homes) were bought on cheap credit due when the southern economies joining the Euro.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (2)

debma (3659077) | about 6 months ago | (#47036675)

I agree. And if it's just a minority that we're hearing, I'd kindly ask the British pro-EU majority to stand up.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

coastwalker (307620) | about 6 months ago | (#47036735)

There is a saying that one shouldn't throw out the baby with the bathwater.

We joined an economic community which has since morphed into an unaccountable political superstate. The political superstate has done nothing useful except start a war in Ukraine which proves that the size of the European Union provides no protection against blindly following American instructions.

Give us free trade and let us write our own law and the EU is just fine.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

lennier1 (264730) | about 6 months ago | (#47036761)

That US lap dog's EU membership has become a cancer that's been festering for decades. Nowadays they're almost nothing beyond that.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036809)

UK is in EU to wreck it. As simple as that. It's the good old continental strategy: keep them weak and divided.

Re:Why are they in the EU again? (4, Insightful)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | about 6 months ago | (#47036859)

The British banks are terrified that we will join the Euro and miss no chance at anti-EU propaganda because we import three quarters of our food from the EU - and to pay for it, have to put up with the banks creaming us 4% on spread for currency exchange. Then we have to export stuff to pay for the food, and they cream us another 4% on the spread for changing the money back.

By this foul strategy, the banks steal 6% of our GDP. No wonder they pay people to spread anti-EU dirt throughout the media!

Of couse, the banks are not short of other ways of stealing our money too. Bankers are rich because they are stealing our money not because they are incredibly clever. Are the Mafia incredibly clever?

UK EU more problems than solutions? (4, Informative)

Vlado (817879) | about 6 months ago | (#47036509)

It looks like the whole UK as part of EU is causing lots of issues on both sides.

In general I'm for the union, but if a single country can keep on causing problems for majority and if that single country is genuinely displeased with common rules by which others would like to abide, then re-evaluation might be in order.

Are there any benefits that a random British person could point out, that are the result of UK being in the EU?

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 6 months ago | (#47036537)

Are there any benefits that a random British person could point out, that are the result of UK being in the EU?

As a random British person, no.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (2)

Chrisq (894406) | about 6 months ago | (#47036653)

Are there any benefits that a random British person could point out, that are the result of UK being in the EU?

As a random British person, no.

No be fair - You can go through the "quick queue" in European airports.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 6 months ago | (#47036665)

Are there any benefits that a random British person could point out, that are the result of UK being in the EU?

As a random British person, no.

No be fair - You can go through the "quick queue" in European airports.

Well, when you put it like that....

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

Claudius II (973798) | about 6 months ago | (#47036677)

So can Norwegians and we are not an EU member. We are just member of Schengen.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036683)

Except in Heathrow (as non-UK EU citizen I avoid this pinnacale of stupidity as the plague).

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (5, Informative)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 months ago | (#47036559)

Are there any benefits that a random British person could point out, that are the result of UK being in the EU?

Cheaper cars (EU rules ban charging extra for right hand drive), and I've been able to live and work in Germany, North Holland and Belgium. Also, electrical goods come with a plug already fitted, and I can head across the channel for cheap drinks.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

Christian Smith (3497) | about 6 months ago | (#47036587)

And buy European porn. Love the common market.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036623)

Buy porn? Nice.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036595)

And how about benefits to the EU?
Apart from charging extra for left hand drive cars to cover cost of right hand drive cars?

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 months ago | (#47036615)

Can't think of anything specific. Of course a union benefits from having more members but this isn't really specific to the UK.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036563)

EU laws limit, to some extent, the damage the British government can do.
Plus, I get to move around within Europe without worrying about work permits.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036565)

It would have to be a very specific British person since most of us are, at best, apathetic to the EU. At worst hostile. Personally, I feel that a lot of the time it's a big clunking machine that's not much good for any individual country but on this occasion they got it absolutely right and I'm ashamed of my government for being the ones to oppose it.

I guess the only benefit to the UK being in the EU for Europeans is we're not 100% under the thumb of the US. Not much of a consolation but better to have an antagonistic member than an antagonistic non-member.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

coastwalker (307620) | about 6 months ago | (#47036641)

We already have zero hour contracts and more part time workers than fully employed so yes, the EU probably prevents us from replacing them with slave prison labor.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036661)

Well: - Influence in EU politics, economics and legislation, with the ability to veto things not in our interests (the net neutrality thing is bonkers though) -- you can't influence things if you're not at the table. - Free trade is nice (being in the club is better than being outside of it) - Health and Safety. I know the Daily Mail hate it, but the EU has forced employers -- by law -- to think about their workers' safety, rather than risk their health and fire 'em - European Court of Human Rights - Go on, name one of their human rights that you don't actually want. - Being part of a bigger political and economic union. Surely that's what we're telling Scotland regarding the UK. Surely this also applies to the UK in the EU I don't get the delusions that the UK can do better outside of the EU than within. No Empire. No manufacturing base to speak of. OK, the City of London earns a farquaad in finance, but countries that think they can play that game get burned eventually when the spreadbetting goes wrong. Greece and Iceland spring to mind. I think most anti-EU people think they'll continue to get all of the benefits they're used to if they leave. The remaining EU members have no obligation to let the UK away with any of it. Unfortunately, the scapegoat is actually quite valuable to the UK. And I think the UK would be moronic to kill it. Hashtag bloody UKIP.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

geniice (1336589) | about 6 months ago | (#47036733)

Health and safety is mostly UK law (okey most of the stuff people complain about is UK law being applied poorly or people not realising the risks of certain activities). EU law tends to be weaker than UK law and practice in this area and in some cases the EU has actually weakened it. The classic one is life jackets. The old UK definition of a life jacket had a pretty good chance of keeping you afloat and the right way up even when unconscious. The EU definition does not.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

xhgcqreq (975557) | about 6 months ago | (#47036731)

There are 1.8 million British people living in the EU according to this article: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/5cd6... [ft.com] . It would be much more complicated for them if the they were not EU citizens.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (4, Informative)

N1AK (864906) | about 6 months ago | (#47036845)

I can move to any country in Europe with the same rights to work and government services as a native. I can travel across EU borders freely, bringing goods with me without restriction. I can shop anywhere in Europe and have it delivered without having to handle import charges or duty fees. Soon I will be able to use my mobile across Europe without paying extortionate import charges. My government is one of the most influential players in the creation of regulations for products and services for the largest trade block on the planet, ensuring we have a say in regulations that could adversely affect my employer. I can receive healthcare for free anywhere within the EU if I need to while travelling.

I'm sure there are others but those are the ones that come to mind.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

N1AK (864906) | about 6 months ago | (#47036855)

I'd also ask what benefits exactly do very wealthy US states like California or New York get from being part of the United States rather than an individual nation? They pay vastly more in to central government than they receive, have laws set that differ considerably from their own states preference and many if not most of the benefits from being part of the same nation could 'theoretically' be gained through agreements between the new nation and the rest of the United States.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | about 6 months ago | (#47036931)

I'd also ask what benefits exactly do very wealthy US states like California or New York get from being part of the United States rather than an individual nation?

Not being annexed by Mexico and Canada respectively, that's quite a benefit.

Re:UK EU more problems than solutions? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036869)

Are there any benefits that a random British person could point out, that are the result of UK being in the EU?

Yes, Europe doesn't end up with an economy that includes of Greece, Turkey, Spain, Italy, Albania, with Germany forced to fund the corruption and graft whilst simultaneously trying to sort out the Ukraine crisis without losing access to cheap Russian gas.

Britain gets very little apart from barrier free access to the European markets.

Of course this was going to happen (2)

sugar and acid (88555) | about 6 months ago | (#47036521)

The UK conservative government has an election next year. They are under a lot of pressure from the UKIP, a party that is for the UK being independent from the EU, so very anti EU. And it is about an issue that they can twist into being about them protecting children from the internet, which plays well in the tabloids. Of course they were going to do this no matter how good or bad the EU legislation actually is.

Re:Of course this was going to happen (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about 6 months ago | (#47036571)

..net neutrality implies that they're getting lobbied by the pipe owners in uk. shocking!

Re:Of course this was going to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036579)

Tough on Europe, tough on the causes of Europe.

Re:Of course this was going to happen (1)

coastwalker (307620) | about 6 months ago | (#47036703)

Winning an election is far more important than good policy. Democracy is at its most flawed at this point in the electoral cycle. Expect bad decisions and bad legislation for the next year.

Cant say I am enthused with either the "Nannying and high taxes of the socialist nightmare" or the "Law and Order, free market gravy train for the few" that will be the choice at the election either. Not a lot to choose from, a plague on both their houses.

UKIP are a nationalist party with no policies except xenophobia and whatever the civil servants tell them to do. They are likely to get a lot of votes, maybe even a very large number of votes because people are frustrated by the political establishment.

People will vote for whoever has the most attractive bribe.

Re:Of course this was going to happen (1)

pjt33 (739471) | about 6 months ago | (#47036883)

Bad decisions, maybe. Bad legislation? They've prorogued Parliament unusually early because they've run out of things that the two parties in the coalition can agree on. They might not manage to find any legislation to push next year.

Re:Of course this was going to happen (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036767)

The UK conservative government has an election next year. They are under a lot of pressure from the UKIP, a party that is for the UK being independent from the EU, so very anti EU. And it is about an issue that they can twist into being about them protecting children from the internet, which plays well in the tabloids. Of course they were going to do this no matter how good or bad the EU legislation actually is.

Yes, UKIP, led by a second rate imitation of Oswald Moseley. It's utterly amazing that the British are voting for this clown after their grandparents went to war to save the world from that ilk.

Consequences for individual countries' NN legislat (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036551)

In the Netherlands we already adopted NN legislation. If the UK is succesful in blocking the legislation at the EU level, what will the consequences be for individual countries like my own? Will we still have our own NN laws in place?

Re:Consequences for individual countries' NN legis (1)

91degrees (207121) | about 6 months ago | (#47036575)

Yes.

Actually I'm not sure why the EU seems to think this is an area where it needs to get involved. It seems to be an issue that will affect each member state individually. I can't see how the UK not implementing NN, or the Netherlands doing so will affect the other in any way.

Re:Consequences for individual countries' NN legis (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036739)

The EU is a trading bloc. NN could be a free trade issue, if ISPs are allowed to discriminate traffic based on the source.

Only one solution (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036553)

Remove UK from EU... it's government controls what you see cancer is already spreading to other countries.

Good, time to kill net neutrality. (1, Interesting)

will_die (586523) | about 6 months ago | (#47036567)

Net neutrality proposals needs to die and quickly.
I like that my ISP can scan my email for spam and remove it, I like that the ISP I use for web hosting blocks traffic from sites that are trying attacks against my web site and I am sure the vast majoity of parents like that their school blocks various web sites that are designed to prey on kids. All of this would be prevented by the various net neutrality bills that have come up; it is good that someone in the U.K. with a technical understanding is reading these proposals.
Once net neutrality is killed we can switch to the family of laws that are need and that is application neutrality. Application Neutrality is the principle that ISP don't have to treat all sites and data on the internet the same but that they have to treat with a same set of rules for all traffic for a application type. ISP should be able to block email or block various web sites and application neutrality allows them to do so provide they filter email the same or block web content by the same set of rules for all sites.

Re:Good, time to kill net neutrality. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036627)

You know nothing, Jon Snow.

Net Neutrality doesn't prohibit filtering mail and malware for ISPs. It merely requires the service to be opt-in. Application neutrality is bullshit because you can say youtube is an application and throttle bandwidth to that service, so thanks, but NO thanks. I am so tired of these corporate shills that have no idea what the internet is and keep blabbering bullshit about things they don't understand.

Re:Good, time to kill net neutrality. (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 6 months ago | (#47036633)

Application neutrality? It seems you are trying to propose a new net-neutrality law in disguise.

Actually ... (1)

oneiros27 (46144) | about 6 months ago | (#47036673)

Many of the Net Neutrality laws only ban blocking 'legal' content.

The US CAN-SPAM act of 2003 lays out rules to make spam legal. ... but in practice, you rarely, if ever, see 'legal' spam . See http://www.law.cornell.edu/wex... [cornell.edu]

Of course, it also gives an exemption to religious, political, and national security messages. (and I don't know if that means that they're not covered under the law, or that they're considered to specifically be legal)

Personally, I'm for net neutrality, but against every wording that I've seen of rules attempting to implement it. I'd be happy if they required ISPs to level with you on what blocking they were doing, and only consider an area to have broadband if it had an ISP that agreed to be a common carrier. (and fund a competitor to set up shop if there isn't)

Re:Actually ... (1)

will_die (586523) | about 6 months ago | (#47036851)

And as it is my ISP blocks alot of those that qualify as legal but for all purposes are still SPAM.
Under almost most net neutrality bills that have come up that would now be illegal.

Re:Good, time to kill net neutrality. (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 6 months ago | (#47036723)

Net neutrality proposals needs to die and quickly. I like that my ISP can scan my email for spam and remove it, I like that the ISP I use for web hosting blocks traffic from sites that are trying attacks against my web site and I am sure the vast majoity of parents like that their school blocks various web sites that are designed to prey on kids. All of this would be prevented by the various net neutrality bills that have come up; it is good that someone in the U.K. with a technical understanding is reading these proposals. Once net neutrality is killed we can switch to the family of laws that are need and that is application neutrality. Application Neutrality is the principle that ISP don't have to treat all sites and data on the internet the same but that they have to treat with a same set of rules for all traffic for a application type. ISP should be able to block email or block various web sites and application neutrality allows them to do so provide they filter email the same or block web content by the same set of rules for all sites.

What the fuck are you talking about? Sounds like you need to install a couple filters and get the fuck out talking about net neutrality because you have no idea what it's about. Enjoy paying extra to get good performance on your streaming services or paying your isp a premium if you want your email delivered now instead of next week. Also kudos for echoing the think of the kiddies line as if schools aren't capable of running their own filters to block inappropriate content, ya'know, like they do at the moment.

Re:Good, time to kill net neutrality. (5, Interesting)

Jahta (1141213) | about 6 months ago | (#47036785)

Net neutrality proposals needs to die and quickly.

You may have intended this as sarcasm. If not, I'd suggest you haven't fully understood the problem.

Look at the current UK government's record, for example. First they introduced mandatory "porn" filtering - which you must formally opt-out of - in the name of "saving the children"; of course, even in it's first incarnation, it was blocking things that were clearly not porn [theguardian.com] .

Then they swiftly moved to "leverage" that to block "extremist" [theguardian.com] material. The problem, of course, is that extremist is a nebulous term; UK politicians have described groups as diverse as the Countryside Alliance and UK Uncut (a tax pressure group) as "extremist", and it's these same politicians - not the courts - who are deciding what should be blocked.

Maybe you really do want to live in an internet bubble where the only things you see are whatever the government of the day has decided is "safe". But most of us would rather make our own minds up.

Re:Good, time to kill net neutrality. (1)

Rashdot (845549) | about 6 months ago | (#47036811)

> All of this would be prevented by the various net neutrality bills that have come up

No it wouldn't. You can still have all the filters you want, and your ISP can still filter your connection all you want.

YOU ARE A SPAMBOT (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 6 months ago | (#47036843)

You posted the exact same message, and continue to post the same message, on anything to do with net neutrality.

Example: http://slashdot.org/comments.p... [slashdot.org]

Fuck you, you worthless ISP shill.

Just kick them from EU (2)

Exitar (809068) | about 6 months ago | (#47036585)

They will be glad to join US.

Fake news (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036613)

First, the best way to fight child pornography is not to filter it - that way child pornography is still reachable through a proxy. Rather, the server must be legally seized.
Second, two years ago the european parliament did pass a resolution allowing for filtering child pornography through the net. I don't think this resolution has been altered in any way by net neutrality.
So, I think it is unlikely for the British goverment to veto european net neutrality - I don't think the british goverment would be so much misinformed. This news is 100% fake coming from some anti-european british.-Ignacio Agulló

Re:Fake news (1)

geniice (1336589) | about 6 months ago | (#47036793)

seizing the server is only an option if the server is in the UK. Otherwise not all police forces cooperate with the UK goverment.

Re:Fake news (1)

mrbester (200927) | about 6 months ago | (#47036833)

The veto will happen because they don't want to lose the ability to threaten ISPs with legislation *later* if the ISPs don't implement an unaccountable filtering system *now*. They want to keep their method of censorship censored by not wanting the publicity of court cases and judicial decisions that can be appealed.

No blocking (3, Insightful)

X10 (186866) | about 6 months ago | (#47036631)

There should be no blocking of whatever content. What is blocked, is accessible to the people who it's targeted at, but the general audience doesn't see it. It's swept under the carpet. Illegal content that exists on the internet should be visible, so people can complain with their representatives in parliament, or file charges with the police. I say this as one of the founders of Meldpunt (www.meldpunt.org) which is one of the founding parties of Inhope (www.inhope.org).

Re:No blocking (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | about 6 months ago | (#47036743)

There should be no blocking of whatever content. What is blocked, is accessible to the people who it's targeted at, but the general audience doesn't see it. It's swept under the carpet. Illegal content that exists on the internet should be visible, so people can complain with their representatives in parliament, or file charges with the police. I say this as one of the founders of Meldpunt (www.meldpunt.org) which is one of the founding parties of Inhope (www.inhope.org).

People should be responsible for their own blocking.

UK vetoing EU stuff? (1)

sTERNKERN (1290626) | about 6 months ago | (#47036649)

I thought they are the ones contemplating on leaving the EU... or is it just "let's mess things up before we shut the door"?

They will be sued (4, Interesting)

patrickv (3481) | about 6 months ago | (#47036669)

The rule is that a member state needs to transpose the whole EU directive into local law within a set timeframe. So, either the UK transposes the whole directive in UK law or they will be taken before the European Court of Justice by the European Commission for lack of, or imperfect, transposition. Their choice.

This sounds more like a desperate effort by the tories to prevent UKIP from making a too high score in the next EU parliament elections happening over the next few days.

AH, yes, all those childporn sites! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036701)

Yes, all those nasty evil child porn sites like, uh, the pirate bay!
Damned pedos sharing all that pedo music and pedo games and pedo movies!
Don't forget those child porn OSes like Linux!

Euromania (1)

smitty_one_each (243267) | about 6 months ago | (#47036721)

Well worth your time => Euromania [youtube.com]

Just leave already (2)

Captain_Chaos (103843) | about 6 months ago | (#47036773)

I'm getting sick and tired of shit like this. Just leave the EU already and become the 51st State, UK! Good riddance!

Re:Just leave - So those are the choices... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036867)

..be ruled from Brussels or join the USA? See everything in black and white much?

We can trade with our neighbours without having to be ruled by them.

I've seen first-hand how the European parliament operates and it is no wonder that national parties are rising to the forefront in France, Denmark and the UK. The whole union needs to be revised, or it will simply splinter under the strain. Countries across Europe are NOT the same and blindly applying legislation on a "one size fits all" basis is the cause of complaint from most quarters.

If you're "sick and tired" maybe you should talk to your Euro MP. See how far that gets you.

See! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036813)

Isn't there anything child porn can't do?!!?

Just guessing here (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036865)

But all the sites that have inconvenient information for the two ruling UK parties are on the child pornography list already? :)

The sooner the brits leave the EU the better (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 6 months ago | (#47036913)

I'm pretty sick and tired of the UK backpedalling. I know you guys have a referendum in the plans. Please, dear brits, vote to leave the EU.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?