 Actually we have two consecutive talks of half an hour, and as they're both on the same more or less topic we've decided to junk them. One is right now, that's Thomas Lohninger from Austria, my home country, and the next one is Frédéric Künschler from Switzerland, and they're both talking about the same problem. You know the old Churchill saying there's two things you don't want to know exactly that's how do they make sausages and how do they make laws? Well, actually you do want to know exactly how to make laws, otherwise you find yourself with a law you don't want, and a south enemy can avoid a banger, but you can't avoid a law. So Thomas here is going to tell you about the fight for net neutrality in Europe, and let's have a big hand for Thomas Lohninger. So, welcome to the translation of the lecture on Natureality in Europe on the 32nd Chaos Communication Congress. So, let's start. We have a lot of things we want to talk about in the next 30 minutes, so I'm going to go through here a little faster so that we can look at the future a little more. The title is Aléa Yachta-Eust, so that's what the judges said, but that's actually not really true. We now have restrictions. We have 28 members of the EU, and I'm going to talk about the history of these laws now. But the law that we have today is still the way it is, and we still have a great war ahead of us. We have to work a lot. We still have a great influence that we have to take. So, a little introduction. Basically, net neutrality, it's all about the university age of the network. We are connected to this network and the basic principle. Today we have net neutrality is the same as the discrimination protection. This is a basic law. We want to establish new models. This is from the starting point for this European question for telecom. It is already a law, 28 members. The responsible commissioners, what is this lady? It is a fact that we are all connected, that we are all connected. So it is in the strategic interest of Europe, in the economic interest of Europe, and it is absolutely important for the citizens. We need full and fair access for internet and mobile services. So, like the internet. This is also the idea of this law. You have the internet that is something like neutral, and then you have other tools. Specialised services that you can translate into special services or fast lanes. If you look at it now, there is a very strange language in it. For example, within the contractual framework of volume or speed, you can't discriminate. But you can discriminate outside. That would be legal. There was a choice in the parliament to get through this law relatively quickly. So, before the election, there was a populist element in it, that was roaming. If I read something about this law, then it was probably about the roaming part. Europe or the roaming births. Well, yes, there will still be roaming, but in different variants with different names. So, it was about getting through this law as quickly as possible in the parliament. And then there was this strange special language, so it was full of it. The fourth point was in the language, in the peer strategy, it was always about saying that they support net neutrality. So, he also said that he supports it, but in fact it is actually the opposite. So, what did we do when the law was in the front? We started to write additions in this wiki here. As I said, we wanted to show a few lessons learned here. So, the first lesson is to get in quickly if you are going to implement the law. The sooner you are, the more you have the chance to influence the legislation. So, look at what is going on in the calendar in the next month. Then you have the chance to have an effective influence for three years. So, we were also here on this stage at 30C3. Markus Beckendahl gave a talk there. So, the website has a very simple idea. Translate your attention into political power. Give people something to do. So, that is the second lesson. Give people something that they can do. Otherwise it doesn't matter to them. Otherwise they won't be engaged. If the people have the feeling that they can participate in this project, then if you have such tasks for the people, then you can change your will to engage in deeds. For us, it was called on or faxed or tweeted by the parliamentarians. So, here I would like to thank Michael Bauer, the head developer of safetyinternet.eu. Unfortunately, he died this year in a heart attack. Without him, we would never have made it. He was a really brilliant person. So, the fax thing was very cool. We sent only 40,000 faxes. They were really meaningful. So, we would like to thank ISP Kappa. They sponsored these faxes. We didn't have to pay for anything. The third lesson, be creative. So, fax, that was something new. No one has ever done it before. And that was very influential. Because there was a physical expression, a opinion of the voters. If you have done it once or twice, the parliament has now turned it into an electronic fax. So, it's no longer so good. You have to adapt quickly. This is the process within the European Parliament. You have these different committees that form their own opinions. That is then summarized in a big committee. And then it comes to the plan. So, I would like to thank Steffen Kammerberg, the only one who was on our side from beginning to end. One of the bad guys is... She has a lot of power over the process of the legislation, and she worked against us at every point. She wasn't really interested in negotiations. She really wanted to get the interests of the telcos. But we still managed to get some adjustments to the legislation. So, these are the ones who have received a majority that have helped us to win. So, now I'm free to talk about certain things in the background. In this email here, the Social Democrats said that the text of the Civil Society came. That's true. We had three things to do here. We had to find all the gaps, and change as little as possible. Because changing every word is extremely expensive. And we couldn't use any politically charged terms. We had to use neutral language to solve all the problems. And that's what we actually managed to get the majority. So, this is us celebrating after the victory. That was great. The fourth lesson is about what you want. You can't ask for things you can't get anyway. You have to make realistic demands. In this text there were many realistic things, but unfortunately there were many formalities that got us stuck together. The parliament didn't really emancipate from the other organizations. The parliament didn't really want to have an absolute majority over the heads of other institutions. Not a simple majority. Half of all parliament members didn't really want to have a majority over the heads of other institutions. That's what we did. We had to find ways to get the majority over the heads of other institutions. We had to find ways to get the majority over the heads of other institutions. The council then did it back again. And then it was even worse to get it over again. Those three institutions then got together in a way that was as intense as possible. And they came out with a new text. The meeting was held at 2 a.m. They were almost all asleep. The Liberals, the Greens, the Left, they were no longer in the negotiations. We can't close that. We just want to continue after the summer break. And Patricia Treuer from the Left was in principle already walking out through the door. And at that moment she still voted for this shitty situation. That's what's going on at the end. And Castillo was the one who worked on this compromise. So we had this bad text that was in front of us. But it still had to go through the parliament. So we had to ask ourselves if this text is worse than useless. Should we fight for change or let it be? I was a little bit pulled back and forth between the two options. And at the end I thought to myself, that's better than what the USA has in this area. There are countries like Germany or Austria or the Netherlands that would then allow better laws even if most of them didn't have that. So I thought to myself, would we have this compromise for 28 countries? Nothing at all. And then something happened. We had Barbara von Schewig, so support from the USA. She also spoke to us, same as Laurence Lessig and Sir Tim Berners-Lee. And we had many more support. There were companies and startups that were involved there. There were venture capitalists that supported us there. They asked the parliament to formulate this law because otherwise they wouldn't want to investigate it. Mr. Stuhl. In Germany too, we had great support, for example from the media from German journalists, but also from many others. But what we didn't do here, what we didn't do early on, was the last minute action. The whole action was done a week before the departure and that was too late. If I had had this media support earlier, it would probably have come out differently. But what we can learn from that, we have to expand our movement. We have to get out of this and reach out to other people. That means we have to reach a wider society. Go to the right-wing, go to the journalists, go to all those who are involved and listen to you. And we had a very creative action, for example in Barcelona. We had our members here who had this projection on this education from Telcón. But in the end it didn't work. It didn't work in the second reading. I would like to explain why this is not the end of the Internet society. I knew it was a media and very strong. And if we look at it now, it was a desire from us. It was a company that we lost and we didn't succeed. And the biggest problem that we have now is that we still have good parts in it. A word that the recommendation from us, we also have to do it now. We have clarity now. It is usable on mobile Internet. And we no longer have a commercial blocking. We still have a state blocking, such as censorship. But it is not possible to stay Skype on your mobile phone. Blocking. The big questions about this are still the important decisions about unlawful relations. We still have a big legal uncertainty. That is also bad for our companies. We still have four big topics that we want to discuss. They are still discussions. And specialized services. That means we can translate it with nothing to do with the Internet. These are five points. We have to use them and then we can still achieve it. Drivers, these 28 companies do nothing but read the laws and use them. That is one of the big questions we have been asked here. Is it okay if we have Internet services or specialized services? That is the same as the zero rating. That means commercial application is the point here because this zero rating is not a commercial application. Because they ask us what do you think is that? What does that mean? From our point of view there are two points to see. Either the zero rating has to be banned or that means in that case the whole topic will be excluded. That means the Dutch Internet can still be excluded or Germany can do it differently. A very important point is the traffic management. There is a risk that there is a risk that we have the whole video streaming in one class but we would not call anyone else because it is against our economic system and that is why we would not prefer that. The class-based traffic has other big problems. We can see that in the gaming application. For example, we have a gaming application because it looks similar. It is possible that the players are no longer usable. In the UK we have a committee with game developers and before they can give it out they have to implement it and discuss it so that it can work. That is and from my understanding traffic management looks at you and does not look at what is in it. There is also a problem if you want to pay it differently if you want to pay it differently because we can do that in this long line. In principle this is what we want. We just want that that is it is we cannot solve the problem differently and only when we see that transparency is the next point. We will see a big change if we for example no longer have an upper limit of the width and a minimum of we have more accurate information for the consumers. That is the organization There is really something meaningful to do from this law. For example there is a national network agency in Germany or RTM Austria they are all together under this law until the end of August in order to have specific guidelines on how to implement this law. This is the time horizon for us when we have to engage in it. The parliament decided that it was announced at this time. We now have nine months there was a stakeholder hearing of the civil society and we are now together with the law providers also with content application providers the public sender and ISP and now you have to find the balance between these groups. Now we are at this point where the working groups work out the guidelines. The law was implemented at this time although these guidelines are not valid yet. But if there is a fall between April and August then this proposal will be approved in the plan and then there will be 20 days public discussion where everyone can give feedback about net neutrality in Europe and then about two months analysis of the feedback and processing of the implementation of the decision. And then there is the final decision in this extraordinary agreement. So let's take a look at these 20 days. In the USA with FCC there were several months consultation and 4 million comments. There were 28 days and still 1 million comments. And now in Europe 20 days. So this is the comparison that we have to make. That means, of course, for European organizations, all organizations that are on the Internet that is the chance that we have. So let's take a look at the USA. This is now an analysis of the comments that the FCC gave when they asked after the opinion of the public. There is now a huge collection of papers, of scientific analysis about this data the analysis of this net neutrality comments. There are so many different topics where people commented on themselves. So out of these 4 million comments, there are really many people who express their thoughts with their own words about this topic, as they think that the network that they use influences or society. So we have things like we need net neutrality for the American dream. The idea behind it is of course also maybe we can go to Europe if the network is great because you can deal with different ideas. And in the USA, this is really a basic idea that has been protected in the USA. And we should also take a heart here. We, the Safety Internet Coalition, will develop a new version of the website in order to comment and to keep your open for as long as 20 days so that you have the opportunity to do something for this law so that you can put your opinion on it. In the remaining time, I would like to leave Europe for a moment to be the motto of the Congress and to look at it globally. There are many issues that are discussed at the moment or are already in power. And because of other leaders of the NetPolitik.org, we have a collection of ads, for example, from Latin America, for example in Chile. Free social networks or full internet here with these websites. So it's not about necessary stuff. It's really a purchase offer. You can buy my internet because you get these services. It goes on and on and on. But it gets pretty ugly in the end. If you look at what happens in India, for example, this Internet.org campaign. Facebook wants to give people access to Facebook. Not the internet, but Facebook. Facebook is now in the offensive and asks people to lobby against net neutrality. And Facebook reacts extremely fast. In India, the public pressure is the same. Because when the barricades against this campaign of Facebook, there is the internet.in, the Indian side. The only question that Mark Zuckerberg would ask, why do you only give these basic services, these 100 pages, instead of access for the whole Internet. Why don't you give the bandwidth that is reserved for this special program, for all websites that are not available? I mean, it would be commercial for the telcos. Exactly the same. There is also a similar program from Mozilla or from ISPs. They are all available on the Internet. And you could do the same if it was more open. We have to look at these problems for this global net neutrality discussion. This is not specifically Europe. And we have to think about how it would be if Facebook was on the other side of the fence. How this would change the fight. Thank you very much. This is the end of my talk and after my time. I will continue to fight for this. We have not yet lost. We have a very, very more specific law. The responsibility lies with those who work on the guidelines. We have to argue we have to fight similarly as in the USA. Save the Internet is a association of 12 NGOs. We do not really have a fixed meeting or so. A lot happens in Austria. This is here, for example, now also here. A workshop over Berwick on 28 December at 8 o'clock. If you are interested please take part in this workshop. Thank you for listening. That was the simultaneous translation about net neutrality in Europe. It was translated by Ploy and Frau Blauwal. If you have any feedback, you can find us on Twitter at c3lingo. We'll have 10 minutes for that. Here is the gentleman from Switzerland, Freddie Künstler. He speaks freeburg dialect. Can you believe that? Freeburg. Pretty good, actually. We both agree that buffering sucks, so please let me have a hand for Freddie Künstler. Thank you. My name is Freddie Künstler. I'm not sure if I should speak Swiss or English. Please give him a chance. If you go, please be quiet. Switzerland would be an option for me. And English, because you know that Switzerland doesn't speak really German. It's a six-year-old digital native on the fastest internet in Switzerland. It's called Fiber 7. Okay, it's about Fiber 7. Thank you. When I was in Greece, I was in a conflict and I had to explain someone. I had to explain why you can't watch YouTube. In Greece, it's a bit difficult, but here in Hamburg it's not much better. So next to a motel in the city, they offer a free wireless access with a few kilos of pictures, but that's not much. If you want five mic internet, you have to pay extra. And that's where we're sending him now, 2015. I'd like to say something. I'm married and I have a son, as I said. He was born in 2019 and with 17 months he already has his iPhone unlocked and someone really showed me how it works. So like me with digital technology, that was in 1978 when I played with these chips. Who knows these chips here, please raise your hand. Later on I did a apprenticeship for electronic devices. Later I did an education as telecommunications electronics. In 1990 I started to deal with Linux. My first Linux was SUSE 4.2. With INIT7 I started in 2000 and later I became president of the SUSE AX association. That was 2009. Later I dealt with network architecture at Z2. And I'm also a politician for the social democrats in Switzerland. But that's hobby-wise. And 5-7 is my other hobby as you already know. I also worked in the internet expert group with the social democrats and our paper was published this month. I don't know how to say that in English. Buffering is shit. I'll tell you this lecture is not about peering or the German telecom or the internet connection. It's about the thousands of young people who want to watch YouTube. And without buffering. Let's see why YouTube and other video providers are buffering. It's about the lack of broadband. If you're interested the Wi-Fi works. If a HD video is not possible. Yes. With PCs it's not a problem anymore. It's about the reception quality and oversubscription. The source of video streaming can be too far away. If it's in the USA it's not so good. That's why you have so many content delivery networks to improve this situation. Then there's adaptive streaming. It can be before or after. If you set it but the connection is bad then it's not working anymore. But if you switch it automatically to standard definition then it would still work. Then routing or problem with algorithms if the client has a server or the wrong CDN server then it's slow. And here last oversubscription with the connection. I'll go back to the old days. When I called your stepmother and she told you 45 minutes but you only say hello and bye then you still have to pay the call. And on YouTube it's not different. If you click on YouTube then YouTube speaks with you for hours maybe and you only say bye at the end. The broadband client is the one who calls on YouTube. Probably it's usually the customer who calls on YouTube. But still 95% of the data goes from the server to the client. But the client is responsible for the traffic because it removes the traffic. If we look at the internet it doesn't work here. The red button doesn't work. We have the end user on the right then we have the provider network and the end user is only connected to the provider's network. And on the left side we have the entire content on the internet. So media, videos, streaming, torrents but there is always only one way to connect to the end user if there is more interconnection in the connection. This basically means the provider can not have a monopoly on the end user for as long as he is involved with him. There is no alternative. There is the provider a power position. On the other hand these interconnection points were long time so called zero settlements peering. So without these internet connection points and without zero settlement peering the internet would not exist in its current form. So the broadband provider usually the surplus of ex-monopolists or cable network operators should actually prepare these connection point bandwidth. For example if this is not upgraded there is a passive aggressive behavior of this provider. So many providers like Deutsche Telekom to name them simply do nothing. They just sit out. And the end user they suffer. Buffering is a common symptom of prime time to use the internet. So the provider basically makes a gated community from the customers. As I said before the data flows from the video server to the end customer is about 50 times as much traffic as in the other direction. So a common common quotient for the provider is 1 to 5 to 1 to 10. So if you pull about 10 times as much traffic to the end customer and at these internet connection points there is a straight line that if the quotient is subscribed the existing internet connection and if you want to upgrade you have to always subscribe and if you want to upgrade then you have to at quotient from 1 to 1 come 5 to 1 to 3. So that no content provider can keep this quotient and if they don't keep this then you have to pay more or it leads to overload of the line. Large broadband providers like the ex-monopolists they just want to be double paid and they have the possibility to force the market that the money flows to them. So on the one hand from the end customers and on the other hand from the content providers. That means two-sided market and if the provider doesn't pass then what you see here is what happens. But the IP interconnection will be cheap. The costs for a customer will be a few cents per month that will be invested and people will be happy. And on top of that the content providers will simply go around for example for cash servers and so on and so forth. So please talk to our community people Amazon, Facebook, Google, Limelight, whatever, Netflix they are not for telecom they are for twitch and set for tattoo. That's expensive. I have a picture here of a vacuum and let's see how much it actually costs and the world has shown it every household costs 509 euros a year. So my assumption was if this vacuum also costs then it also costs money. I think no one was really exploring that field but I thought no one really examined it. So I said I will make my own assumption a whole milk bill Jesus. When I was a child it was the milk that came in the morning and we then put our order into the milk bill and he put the milk in the box and he paid for it. So this is my quick calculation so we have about 30 million broadband connections I have assumed that everyone has to wait for about a minute while we are watching Netflix probably less who thinks one minute is not enough okay we will take a minute for the calculation I also assumed that it costs 5 euros per minute per hour that's about a good amount so if you think 5 euros is not enough then you can take it over it's a self-reservation and I don't know what it means but I looked at it and that means for the time the amount how much is the value of the free time that's my calculation so if we wait a minute that's 63 if we multiply with 5 euros then we would have 30 euros 30 euros per year that's about 30 million with 30 million subscribers to 900 million euros per year that's the economic damage in Germany per year and how we can take it a large part of the buffering comes from the not good connection for example during the evening that's also a result of the restrictive policy for the big provider their possibility to withdraw even more money from this two-sided market result they would probably make a few millions more I assume that that's about 10, 20, 30 millions extra that can be deducted on the other hand we have a damage per year from 900 million euros per year that's an incredible imbalance my conclusion is in a democratic country like Western Europe is the economic profit from this film that's not tolerable I think the talk of Thomas when we are going to wake up and are all market participants forced to cooperate because the whole thing is suffering the suffering is very, very widespread the German TV of course tells that it's not a problem yes and the exchange points will be discussed again and again whether it should be deducted my case for example against Swisscom it's already taking several years although it should be solved relatively quickly these negotiations and yes these broad-band providers should agree as I said as I said Telecom should be deducted twice because it makes a market other providers like Telecom Ungarn or Swisscom in Switzerland use their power to swing up their limited peering I quote Kura the head of Comcom only a fake regulator is a good regulator so thank you let's go over to the questions so those who are leaving do it silently please first question I have a question for Thomas from your talk that you did a lot of work that you really put a lot of work into it can you talk a little bit about your budget yes so this association is somehow a connection from 12 NGOs and there is no fixed household plan for everyone but we have all reports where you can read them they are transparent I can't speak specifically about the budget but I am in Austria in the Media Democracy Foundation and they have 10,000 Euros and Netflix also has 10,000 Euros for the development and also for the development of the fax because the provider on whom I am related has not paid so basically the budget is pretty small in Europe so in the USA there is a lot more means through the lobby so in comparison to Europe Europe is really what we have we have already thought whether to develop the tool to collect donations but it is very difficult because we also make these 12 NGOs all different and how to distribute the money if you want to support us if you want to support us then simply donate to the organization the corresponding initiative for net freedom are probably the two that I would prefer but they usually get a lot from the USA so I have your whole work did you really do that for 20,000 Euros? no, I was paid by Adry when I worked in Brussels but normally it was my free time my travel expenses were paid and otherwise I do that in my free time I work for data protection NGOs I work for data protection NGOs and yes so we do it for nothing people hello Thomas, thank you for your work is great my question about the companies that engage, for example the Angel Capitals why did they come so late in this discussion so how can we change that in the future I think they are great allies yes, that is the right question to the topic in Europe is there simply an organized language for these startups when it comes to digital rights you have to usually organize them over the US network that is the connection between the civil rights and the company that is organized in Brussels under the European Schirmheirschaft that is really weak so to strengthen this connection that would be great if you do that but you need business contacts and I don't have so many we really need people who diversify and spread so if we work with Barrack with the Barrack guidelines the arguments from the business side more opinion from the companies so you can work with the regulators to change something and guess not the influence of the lobby the telecom the Liberty Globals they have a lot of money and they try to influence the politicians as well as possible and they do that very well the telecoms will have people for all 28 regular the telecom will have a lot of people who have a lot of lobby work for them thank you is there a question from the internet? is there a question from the internet? it is what a peering provider should differentiate between peering providers between VPN traffic and public traffic and where is the limit between private network and internet traffic? what should I say that is a difficult question basically there is always an overcommit so as long as you don't do an overcommit there is no bandwidth so there should be no problem and the common argument is if you invest millions and millions in the broadband but unfortunately unfortunately you have to invest in your backbones and invest a little part in these interconnections to bring it slow another question another question I have a question for buffering most of the content was delivered on TCP IP what would you switch to UDP and that would change the situation? not really it won't help because if you lose the package it doesn't matter if it is UDP or TCP that was a short answer so when I came here this year I had the impression that DSL is not just a bandwidth problem but also the latency of course I have fiber 7 at home but it runs over the glass but the latency went from 60 to 80 milliseconds and today it is 80 to 120 milliseconds what is the problem? latency is directly connected if the provider doesn't have enough bandwidth then it goes up that is the disadvantage of TCP but you can find out if you trace back you can talk about how to translate trace but that could help you next question go ahead is Netflix a gated community by itself? is Netflix a gated community for itself? and are you sure that your interests are in tune with the net neutrality movement? we should distinguish between Netflix and Netflix connection the content is in the OSI otherwise I would say I am talking about the third layer network layer and Netflix are good people and they help to transfer the package I know a few people personally from the peering community and they are definitely good people for the European debate Netflix was one of the good guys in the US and they also supported the European movement but they could also survive in both sides of the market in the commercial market it would be risky to allow these new anti-net neutrality business models but of course they also have their own interests that they follow otherwise Netflix definitely pays for the German telecom otherwise nobody would be able to watch Netflix at all yes we have less time so please briefly do you have an explanation for how the European Commission behaves I especially think of Günther Oettinger who said it is totally ridiculous that net neutrality is in there he said it again and again and there seems to be no reason to give it can you explain why the Commission behaves like that we had before we have a YouTube video that fits the topic of net neutrality and the argument of Oettinger we suspect that the telecom simply has to give a little profit when it comes to roaming and that they only profit by these new regulations and the people want to win quickly yes it was a shift for the telecom industry and Oettinger is one who simply works for the lobby last question what strategy should an ISP use when the backbone is overloaded because the capacity is limited so just upgrade it costs 10.000 that is nothing just upgrade thank you that was the talk of Fedi Künzle buffering sucks