5 november 2009 | plaats: Den Haag | drs. F. Heemskerk | ICT-beleid

Speech staatssecretaris van Economische Zaken, Frank Heemskerk, t.g.v. themamiddag netneutraliteit, donderdag 5 november, NH Den Haag

Welcome

• Welcome to this conference on netneutrality. I am pleased you have come today to join me in exploring this important topic.
• I see in the audience a wide diversity of participants, from network owners and internet service providers, to software and hardware providers and consumer interest organizations. I am very pleased to see such diversity, because it will ensure that all viewpoints in the netneutrality debate are being represented.

Policy up till now

• As you all may know, I find this debate to be a very important one. Netneutrality is a key issue in the brave new world of ICT and telecommunication! At stake is the freedom of internet use - which has implications for public values including consumer choice and innovation.
• This is why I believe transparency is crucial.
• Earlier this year, debate arose in the Netherlands when the use of Skype on the iPhone was blocked. As the person chiefly responsible for consumer and telecom affairs, I am not necessarily concerned if certain software is blocked. But the central question for me is: Do consumers have a choice?
• Product differentiation is important. Consumers must have a choice between different product offerings. In a telecommunications market as competitive as the one we now have, my assessment is that consumers currently do have a choice.
• As long as there are smartphones and providers that do enable the use of Skype, there is no problem! However, consumers should be well informed and should have a choice!
• A recent study about netneutrality in the Netherlands confirmed my view that transparency is important to consumers and that it can be improved.
       

 NRF

• The question is: How do we guarantee that consumers have a choice and are given adequate information?
• New EU regulations provide the answer.
• The discussions around the European Commission's "New Regulatory Framework" have nearly reached an end.
• In this regulatory framework, Member States will be given additional powers to act when a problem arises regarding netneutrality.
• A first measure is a transparency obligation. As you will have gathered from what I have said thus far, I fully support this measure. To me, the obligation to fully inform users about any restrictions or limitations on the use of a service is an essential tool for ensuring that customers are aware what service they are purchasing.
• As long as customers can also switch providers quickly and easily, the transparency obligation ensures that customers have the ability to vote with their feet in a competitive market.
• A second measure that the New Regulatory Framework will give me is the legal means to define minimum quality standards. In cases in which the market is not working properly, I can define minimum quality norms for network-related services. In this way, I can act when consumers suffer from a serious deterioration of a service or excessive delays in the network.
• These new measures should be implemented into our Dutch Telecommunications law by 2011. I am sure I will be able to use the insight I have gained at this conference when implementing these measures.
• Do we need more?

 

• As far as I can see, and based upon the thorough Dialogic study, the new EU regulations will give me the powers I need to act if and when a serious problem occurs.
• Far-reaching intervention may innovation and consumer choice do more harm than good.
• There are, for instance, various reasons for operators to manage the traffic on their networks - and some of these reasons are more legitimate than others.
• For example, most of us would agree that network operators should be able to block illegal content on their networks, or manage traffic flow in peak-times to ease congestion. But should that same network operator be permitted to prioritise traffic of a specific service requiring high "quality-of-service" levels, such as high definition video conferencing? And should these operators be able to do that at the expense of traffic streams of a competitive service provider on their network?

 

•  This afternoon, you will discuss these and other issues related to netneutrality in more detail. I look forward to hearing your arguments for and against regulation of netneutrality. Perhaps we can find some common ground between us in this diverse assembly.
• I would like to thank you once again for joining in this important discussion. I hope this afternoon will give us all a good perspective on the public interests at stake in the debate over netneutrality, and will give us a clear overview of the possible ways to secure these interests.
• I look forward to hearing your views. I am very eager to find an appropriate solution for the regulation of netneutrality in the Netherlands -- a solution that secures consumer choice, innovation and competition.
• Thank you.