 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 Fredy 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 sausage, I mean you 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. Hello, and thank you everybody, good. So let's dive right in. We have a lot of ground to cover for the past three years, which have to fit in the next 30 minutes, so I'm going to talk fast at the end so we have a little bit more time for the outlook in the future. The subtitle of this talk is Alia Akta Est, so the dices have fallen, which in fact is not really true. We now have legislation in Europe for the first time, binding legislation for net neutrality in all 28 member states, and this talk will be about the history of this legislation, how civil society played a huge role in this law. But still the law that we have now is really ambiguous, so the fight is not over, there are next steps to come which will actually give it real meaning and influence what net neutrality will actually have in Europe. A little bit of introduction, so net neutrality in principle is the university of the network. As you see here, we are all interconnected over the network, and the basic foundational principles that boil down in these days, in the age of deep packet inspection and discriminatory pricing, net neutrality boils down to discrimination protection. And it's basically preventing ISPs to establish new discriminatory business models. And this was also the starting point for this European legislation called telecom signal market. It's a regulation that means it's directly applicable in all 28 member states, not like a directive, it doesn't have to be transposed to national legislation, it's already a law in all 28 countries. And the responsible commissioner, back in September 2013 when it was introduced, is this old lady Neely Cruz? It is a fact that we are all connected, and we want to be connected. So this package is essential for Europe's strategic interest, for Europe's economic progress. It is absolutely crucial for the telecom sector itself, and of course for citizens who need full and fair access to telecom services, such as internet and such as mobile services. Such as internet, this is also the spirit of this whole law, you have internet which is kind of neutral, and then you have other stuff like specialized services, which you could basically translate in your head to net neutrality violation or paid fast lanes. And if you look at the original commission proposal, which they put in front of us, it had really weird language, like within the contract that you enter into with your ISP, you're not allowed to discriminate. But if the contract states that you have discriminatory pricing or different speeds for different types of applications, that would be legal under the original commission proposal. The commission had a three-fold strategy. It used the election to get the parliament to adopt this regulation really fast, to put it in a hurry to rush this thing through before the elections in May 2014. It used a populist element which was roaming. If you have heard any coverage about this legislation, it was probably about the roaming part that Europe would abolish roaming charges, which is actually also a kind of a fuzzy deal. You will still have roaming charges, but they will have different names and different forms. But that was something which made it essential for all MEPs, for all parliamentarians in the European Parliament, to pass this legislation really fast. And they used bizarre and complex languages you've just seen. The whole regulation was full of that. And the fourth point is that in their language, in the PR strategy, they were always claiming to support net neutrality. We see the same thing with Günther Ettinger now, the successor of Neely Cruz. He's also saying that he supports net neutrality, but in fact, he's doing the opposite. So what have we done once this regulation was in front of us? We started to write amendments in the Vicki. Actually, it took us only a month to come up with the first improvements for this text. And I also said that I wanted to give some lessons learned. The first lesson to learn if you want to influence European policies come early. The earlier you are on the table, the earlier you start talking with officials about a subject, the more influence you will have on the process. So if you want to influence legislation, don't look what it's in the calendar next month. Look what it is in the calendar in three years. Then you have a good chance to really make a difference. And we had the Save the Internet campaign, which was actually launched here on that stage three years ago. And the talk with Markus Beckerdahl at C333. And the website basically followed a simple idea. Translate attention into political force. Give people something to do. And provide actionable items is the second lesson that you can take away from that. You have to give people something to do. Otherwise, they will not care about the subject. Otherwise, they will not get really involved. They will not feel like they have a part in whatever political issue you want to raise. And invest these actionable items actually translate the attention and the will of the citizens into something that's in front of the officials, in front of the parliamentarians. In our case, calls, faxes, tweets, and emails, these were our actionable items. And here I also want to thank Michel Bau, who was the core developer of all the contact here, MEP, tools on Save the Internet, besides the pi phone from Dr. Türi Necht, who sadly deceased with a heart attack this year. And without him, we never would have made it in such a good time. He developed the whole contact suite in like a week or so. He was a really brilliant person. So the fax swing was really cool. We sent it around 40,000 faxes to the parliament, 20,000 of which were already also received by them. Here again, I want to thank the ISP Kappa, who sponsored us all those faxes for free for the first round. We didn't have to pay for any of them. So third lesson is be creative. So faxes were a novel thing. It wasn't done any time before. And so they were really influential because suddenly you would have a physical token of a citizen's will in the office of the parliamentarian. But like every creative campaigning idea only works once or twice, now the parliament has switched to an electronic fax delivery. So this idea no longer works, at least not so efficiently. So you have to adopt fast. This is the process in the European Parliament. You have these several committees which all adopt their opinions on the legislation. And then the whole thing goes into the leading committee, the industry committee in this case, and then to plenary. Here I want to thank Peter Kama, either the German Social Democrat who was like the only MEP that sticked with us from the beginning to the end. She was really fighting like hell. And she was one of the good guys. One of the bad guys is Pilare Castileo, the rapporteur down there in the Etrech committee. As a rapporteur, she has a lot of power over the process of this legislation in Europe. And she was really working against us wherever she could. And also working against opinion of the European Parliament. So she was not really negotiating to get the good deal that the parliament adopted in plenary and first reading. She was really working to get what the Tercos and Telefonica are wanting. And so in the plenary, we actually managed to get amendments through. Before that, it looked quite grim. But we had those amendments which got a majority and which brought us to victory. Because this legislation is now passed and published in the journal. I'm now also at liberty to speak a little bit more about what is the background of it. And actually, as you have here in this email from UK Social Democrat, the text came from civil society, which in fact is true. When we drafted this text, there were like four things, three things that we had to do. We had to fix all loopholes. We had to change as little as necessary. So only minor text changes. Every word is costly. And we couldn't use any politically loaded phrases. So we had to come up with totally new language, which would solve all problems, but still get a majority, which in fact we managed to achieve. There was also a bigger majority. That's our celebrating after the victory. And yeah, that was big fun. So fourth lesson to take away is be clear about your demands with politicians. You will not succeed in asking for stuff that is impossible for the politician. You have to ask for something which is realistic. And in their eyes, getting a good text in first reading was realistic. But there were many formality arguments in second reading which worked against us and at the end broke our necks. One was that the parliament is not really emancipated from the other institutions. Council has much more power. So the member states really can make demands and draw red lines that the parliament is not really willing to step over. And also second reading also means that you need an absolute majority for any amendment, not just a simpler majority. So half of all MPs are not just those who are present at the vote. But it's not all just the first reading. And here you have basic idea of how laws are adopted in the European Union, with the commission on top, the parliament at the left, and the member states in the council on the right. And we had save the internet campaigns for all of those steps. And basically, when the commission adopted their proposal, that was, of course, anti-Net neutrality as its best. The parliament fixed it. The council reverted it and really came up with a text that was partly even worse than what the commission originally wanted. And then those three institutions sat together in the most intransparent way you could imagine, and came together and made the new text. And the agreement here in trial was actually reached at 2 a.m. With everybody almost asleep, everybody like, okay, let's fix this, let's fix this. And the liberals, the greens, the left, all of them were already out of the room. They was like, okay, no deal. We'll continue after the summer break. Let's just not continue any more discussion. And then the negotiator from the Social Democrats, Patricia Toya, she was already standing in the doorway with her hand back in her hand. And then she agreed to this proposal because the conservatives gave her some concessions on roaming, then she agreed to the shitty net neutrality. So that's actually what it boils down to at some stages. And it was Castelio who was driving this compromise. So we had a really bad text which was on the table and agreed between all three institutions, but then it would still need to go through parliament. And we had to ask ourselves over the summer break, is this text worse than useless? Should we really fight for amendments or should we fight for deletion? This was a huge argument within the Save the Internet Coalition. And even I was sympathetic to both sides, but at the end we thought this text is better than, for example, what the US had in their first net neutrality law. And therefore it's worth fighting because maybe there are countries like Austria, like Germany, like the Netherlands that have or would adopt good legislation, but many other countries would not. And so in the sense of European Union, we thought better have this compromise fall 28 instead of just a few good laws. And then something really magically happened because finally we got support from the US. We had Barbara von Schading, the world's leading expert and scientist on net neutrality, speaking out in support for us. So did Lawrence Lasik, so did Tim Dermas-Lee and many other supporters. We also had companies getting involved, startups and big internet companies like WordPress. And we also had venture capitalists that urged the parliamentarians to really adopt these amendments, make this a clear legislation because otherwise they would stop investing into European startups because I would not give money into a business model which might not work in a few months. And also in Germany, we had big support from the media authorities, the Landesmedienanstalten and the Association of German Journalists, many others, but really what we didn't do here, we didn't come early. And this was all the last minute action. The real traction this whole thing gained was one week before the final vote. And that was too late. If we could have had this traction and this media coverage beforehand, then it might have turned out differently. But what you can take away from that is that we have to broaden our movement, that we really have to go out of the net political nerd bubble, we have to reach other people. Digital rights issues are broad civil society issues and we have to treat them as such. Go to the churches, go to the journalists, go to whomever is willing to listen and make your cause broaden the movement. And we had really creative actions like here in Barcelona, our member XNAT had this nice projection on the building on Telefonica. But at the end, it didn't work, we failed in second reading. And I have to speed up a little bit and explain why this is not the end of net neutrality. I know this was in the media quite heavily and if you look at it finally, of course this is a loss for us because we campaigned for amendments and we did not succeed. But still the text that's now on the table, the biggest problem is that it's ambiguous, but it has some good parts in it. And one word of advice that you have to keep in mind that the US also needed two approaches to get this right. The first net neutrality laws were even worse than what we have now. There is clarity that this is now applicable not only to fixed line but also to mobile internet and at least we'll see no longer commercial blocking in Europe. You could still have state blocking, so like censorship lists from any public authority, but you could not for example block Skype if you are a mobile operator and want people cornering to using your own roaming. There is intentional ambiguity in all the big questions about net neutrality and paid fast lanes. And so the real decision is now left to the unelected regulators and to the unelected judges. We most certainly expect court cases in front of the European High Court and this means a huge legal uncertainty which is really bad not only for citizens but also for business. So there are four big subjects we have to cover that are still in the debate now with the European regulator that's now tasked with giving this law actual meaning. Specialized services, as I said, you could translate it into your head with paid fast lanes and not net neutrality or with those services that really have nothing to do with the internet. That has to be our goal here. There are five safeguards in the regulation that we have to apply right and then we can still achieve that goal. But the regulators like these are the 28 organizations in Europe that are tasked with regulating the telecom markets. They are not doing anything else than reading laws and applying them on the market. And that's one of the question they asked us in the hearing. So would it be okay to have internet services as specialized services? And you can see how we wake in the biggest disloyance if this is the basic question that they are asking us. Similarly with zero rating, the practice of commercial discrimination if some data packages cost more than others. Again, we have some sort of safeguard here but commercial practices is the corner work here because zero rating is not mentioned in the whole legislation. Commercial practices, and that's the funny part, they are asking us, the regulator is asking civil society, what in our understanding commercial practices actually means? And from our perspective, there are two ways of seeing it. Either it means zero rating in which case it has to be prohibited or it means anything else in which case, for example, it could mean interconnection that applies perfectly to the legislation. But in that case, this whole topic would be left for national legislation. So the Dutch net neutrality law could still outlaw zero rating or Germany could adopt a new law which would prohibit that practice. A very important point, which was sadly not so much discussed is traffic management. There is a risk that ISPs could introduce a class-based SIF system to manage congestion, for example, that would look like, okay, we have all video streaming applications in one class and we prioritize them but we don't prioritize telephony applications because although they also are delay sensitive, they are against our own business models and therefore we are not prioritizing them. Class-based traffic management has another big problem and you can look at the UK where this is a common practice. If you want to throttle file sharing and you have some gaming applications that look similar than file sharing, you could end up with throttled gaming applications which make the games unusable. And so in the UK, you have now standing committees between game developers and ISPs like PlusNet and before they have a rollout of a new game, they have to sit down and agree on the technical characteristics so that the game actually works in the British internet and this is the total opposite of innovation without permission. And from our understanding, traffic management always has to be as application-agnostic as possible. So only look at the header, don't look in the contents of the package, don't look, don't make any differentiation between applications or services. And there's also a problem if you look at the content, if you want to treat encrypted traffic differently. There is a risk that all encrypted traffic could end up in the slow lane. So in principle, this is what we want to achieve, be as application-agnostic as possible and then only allow traffic management based on technical characteristics where it is really necessary in proportion that you cannot solve the problem in any other way and then only if this is not sufficient you could reserve to a class-based system. Transparency, we will see some big change here when it comes to advertised and real speeds of internet. So if this regulation enters into force and if the transparency provision are applied correctly, you will no longer have just up to a certain megabyte of internet. Instead, you will have a minimum and average and the maximum bandwidth which has to be stated in a contract. So more accurate information for consumers. Now, this is the organization that is now tasked with making actual sense out of this legislation. So this is the umbrella of all 28 regulatory authorities in Europe, like Bundesnetzagentour in Germany or RTR in Austria. All those come together under the umbrella of Barrett and they now have until the end of August, according to the regulation, to come up with actual guidelines that give this text real meaning. And if we look at the timeline, this is basically our work program which we'll have to fill with life. The parliament adopted a regulation in October and it was published in the journal on 26th of November which gives us the nine months of time we now have. And there was a stakeholder hearing from civil society. I could participate for ADRI and we basically sat down with the regulators and gave them our interpretation of the text. But so did also the content application providers like the public broadcasters or internet companies and so did the telecom industry. So now they have to strike a balance between those three stakeholder groups. We are now at a point where the working groups are drafting the guidelines. Really weird fact, the whole regulation will enter into force at the end of April, although the guidelines are not applicable there and nobody could answer the question what this actually means if there would be a case in this period between April and August. So this working draft will then be voted in plenary at the end of June and then we'll have 20 days of public consultation. You'll have 20 days to say what you think about the new net neutrality in Europe, which is ridiculous. And then they have roughly a little bit less than two months to analyze all this feedback and to redraft the guidelines. So the more feedback they receive, the fewer time you'll have to actually redraft the whole thing before it's finally voted in extraordinary plenary within BEREC so that it can be published. So let's focus on those 20 days. In the US, we had several months of consultation and four million comments. In India, it was 28 days, still one million comments. And they're continuing, they all have another consultation up and running right now. And now in Europe, we have 20 days. So this is the comparison that we face and this also means for Europeans of society and all those people who care about the internet, this is the timeline and this is the opportunity that we have. And we can look at the US. This is an analysis of the comments that were given to the FCC when they first asked for opinions about net neutrality. And there is now a huge collection of scientific papers, visualizations and everything about this huge record about the topic of net neutrality. So you can see that there are so many issues that also organically the people commented. You have very few templates in here. So out of these four million comments, many of them are actually people sitting down, writing in their own words, what they think about the subject, how it would influence their business, how it would influence their education, how it would influence the network that they are running. And you have many interesting stuff like you need net neutrality for the American dream. And the idea behind that is also, and maybe we can take some advice from the US here for Europe, that America is America because you can connect to different opinions. At the core of net neutrality, you have the equality of the network. And this was preserved here with the new rules in the US and we should really take advice on that. And that's also why we as safety internet coalition will come up with a new version of the website that will support the consultation and extend it, not just in the 20 days, but for a longer time period, so that more of you have the opportunity to have an actionable item, to do something for this legislation and to really have your say. In the remaining time, I would like to step a little bit out of Europe and follow the motto of this year's Congress and look a little bit at the global issue. You see now, there is many legislation not actually discussed or already in place. It varies greatly in the amount of safeguard that it provides for citizens. And thanks to Andre Meister from NetsPolitik.org, we have a little collection of all the billboards and advertisements in Latin America about zero rating. So let's have a look how this is seen in Peru and Chile and other countries. You have here free social networking, which is huge advertisement bonus, and you have full internet with these 12 websites. And we're not speaking about nerdy stuff. This is like a selling proposition that you can have these services for free, therefore buy my Simcon, buy my internet. And it goes on and on like that, but it gets really ugly if you look at what's happening in India right now. Facebook has this program called internet.org, which is basically a gated community which gives poor people without any access to the internet just access to Facebook and a few other sites. And Facebook is now under offensive. They are asking citizens to lobby the regulator against net neutrality. They are really challenged in that. And you could see that Facebook was fast responding because the public pressure in India amounted to companies and telecom actors and also politicians publicly denouncing this program. I can only quote one of the founders of safetyinternet.en, Nikhil Paava, said yesterday that the only question that he would ask Mark Zuckerberg, who is always on the forefront to defend his program, why is he just giving these free basic services with just a few selected hundred sites instead of giving them the whole access to the internet? If you give the bandwidth that's reserved for these programs just freely to everybody so that they can use them in whatever way they want, you would achieve exactly the same commercial interest for the telecom providers and there are similar programs from Mozilla and also from other Indian ISPs that just give people, I don't know, three months of a few megabytes to get them hooked on the internet. If this is just the idea to bridge the digital gap by getting people some sense of internet that could be easily done by that way. So we have to look at the challenges for the global net neutrality movement. This issue is far from just the Western debate right now and we always have been wondering in the digital rights movement how it would be if Google or Facebook would be on the other side of our debate, if they really would fight against this. We can look in the global south, it's first happening there. So that's the end of my talk and also my time. I want to thank you. I want to urge you to keep fighting. Net neutrality is not lost in Europe. It's more like we now have a really ambiguous law. The responsibility lies now with the regulators so we are in a way at the point where the US was in 2014 and now we have to do a similar mobilization. We have to do a similar form of augmentation to get it right. And Save the Internet is a coalition of 12 NGOs and we don't have one fixed hub but there is a lot of development going on in Austria and we'll also have a workshop today at 6 p.m. at the Atria Assembly at Noisy Square. If you want to get involved, if you have a special interest in business or are in high speed, then please participate in this workshop to get the new Save the Internet as fast as we can. Thank you. Okay. We got to do something unorthodox today. We got to have the next talk right onto this one. Please, we're going to have a flying change of people who want to come and leave because the two talks are related. We'll have 10 minutes of question and answer after the making talk. So here's, This is the gentleman from Switzerland, Freddie Künzler. He speaks Freiburg dialect. Can you believe that? Freiburg, yeah, pretty good, actually. We both agree that buffering sucks, so please let me have a hand for Freddie Künzler. Thank you. My name is Freddie Künzler. Grüezi mit den Onds. I was thinking whether to have the talk in Swiss German or in English. Sorry, excuse me for being... Never mind, never mind. This is unorthodox. When you leave, please leave in peace and quiet, okay, and give him a chance. Thank you. So, Swiss German would be an option for me, English, because German, as you know, the Swiss don't speak proper German. My six-year-old, digital native, is telling people, rather proud that his dad invented the fastest internet in Switzerland. It's called Fiber 7. I was, thank you. When we went to Greece for vacation, I was in a target conflict because I had to explain him why he couldn't watch YouTube. I mean, Greece, you know, it's maybe a bit difficult. But as a matter of fact, here in Hamburg, it's not any better. I'm next door in the hotel intercity, and they offer free Wi-Fi with 256 kilobit. If you want five mech internet, you pay eight euro extra per day. So, this is where we are in 2015. Few words about me. I married one son, as I said. He was born 2009, and he was able to unlock the iPhone with the age of 17 months. No one showed him how. My early connection with digital techniques was about 1978, when I was playing with these chips 7400. Who knows them? Raise your hand. Few, thanks. Later on, I did a apprenticeship as a fair-mailed electronic operator, and I started to do IT business about 1991. 1996, almost 20 years ago, we started with Linux stuff. My first Linux was SUSE 4.2. In year 2000, we started with init7, and later on, I became president of the Swiss Six Association. This is an association which runs internet exchange. I had also my time in the startup called SETU. Did some network architecture, OTT, IP, television. Besides, I need a hobby, so I'm also a politician for the social democrats in my city parliament, already eight years. And then I started with the other hobby, Fiber 7, as you know. Oh, besides, I was also working in an internet expert group of the social democrat Switzerland, and the internet paper was adopted earlier these months by the National Delegierten for some long. I don't know what this is in English. So, buffering sucks. Ladies and gentlemen, this talk is not about Deutsche Telekom. It's not about peering. It's not about interconnection. It's about these thousands and millions of youngsters out there which want to watch YouTube in HD resolution without buffering. So, let's quickly look at the reason why YouTube and all the other video buffers. So, it's usually, it's lack of bandwidth. So, if you have a two-meg DSL, or if you have intercity Wi-Fi, free Wi-Fi with 250 kilobits, so HD video is not possible. Sometimes they have old people sometimes they have old PCs. So, CPU power is an issue. These days, no longer relevant. Wi-Fi quality sucks. Sometimes this is rather an individual issue, and sometimes we have an over-subscription of the shared note, mainly in cable networks. Streaming source can be too far away. If you stream from the US, it doesn't really go well. That's why we have so many CDN content delivery network systems close to the end users. Adaptive streaming can be an advantage, but also disadvantage. You cannot turn it off when you watch HD, and the connection sucks. You just cannot keep it on HD. It just drops to SD or low resolution. It works, yes. But Claire Underwood in low-res is not so cool. Routing algorithm issues. Sometimes it's a mismatch of client and server. If your client is assigned to the wrong CDN server, then it's also slow. Any cost routing is a trick sometimes. And last but not least, and the most important thing, it's oversubscribed into connections. We go back quickly to the old days. The caller pays. When you call your mother-in-law and you talk with her, well, she talks to you for 45 minutes, and you say hello and goodbye, you still pay the call. So with YouTube, it's not any different. You click YouTube, and then YouTube talks to you for hours, maybe, and then you say goodbye, basically. So is the broadband customer calling the YouTube server or is it vice versa? Is the YouTube server calling the broadband customer? Probably it's the broadband customer who calls. But still, the data is flowing from the server to the client. But the client is causing the traffic because he's requesting the traffic. And if we look at the structure of the Internet, we have basically the... Oh, it doesn't work here. Red button is dead, never mind. We have the end user to the right. We have the provider network. The end user is only connected to the provider's network. On the left side, we have all the content in the Internet. We have the media, and video, and streaming, and torrent, and you name it. But there is always only one way going to the end user. It's the yellow marked interconnection points. There is no way around them. This basically means the provider can monopolize the end customer, at least as long he's connected or subscribed. There is no alternative way. So this gives the provider a position of power. On the other hand, these interconnection points used to be for a long period of time, so-called zero-settlement interconnections. They are basically the foundation of the Internet. Without zero-settlement peering, without interconnection, the Internet wouldn't exist as we know it. The broadband provider, mainly the incumbent, the ex-monopolist or large cable operators, they tend to become more and more restrictive to provide sufficient interconnection capacity. Not upgrading interconnection to the requirements is very common these days, and it's a passive aggressive behavior. So many providers, to name a few, Deutsche Telekom, they just do nothing. They just wait. Anti-end customers are suffering. Buffering is very common, especially during prime time. This is basically what the main topic of this conference is. It's a gated community. The provider creates a gated community for his own end customers. So, as I said before, the data is flowing from the server, from the video server to the end customer. It's about 50 times more traffic flowing to the client. The usual traffic ratio we have for broadband providers is 1 to 5 or 1 to 10. So, they're pulling about 10 times more traffic towards the end customer. Then we have this interconnection policy, so they don't do anything. As I said before, they just oversubscribe the existing interconnection and if you want to upgrade, you have to have a traffic ratio of about 1 to 1.5 to 1.3, but no video stream service can deliver traffic and also maintain the traffic ratio. No content provider can. So, all they can do is they can pay money to get upgraded and if they don't pay, data is stuck in congestion and their clients are suffering and see the buffering sign. Large broadband providers, such as the incumbents and cable providers, they want to get paid twice. They are able to force the money due to the temporary monopoly, as I explained, and they can ask money from the end customer and on the other hand also from the content. This is called double-sided market and if they don't pay, the content is not paying, this is what we see and sometimes, as a side note, the end customer pays but still sees this. But IP interconnection would be cheap. The business cost per broadband customer is just a few cents per month and if the provider would invest this, people would be happy. And on top, content provider are easy to deal for peering or provide cash servers, etc. So, please talk to our community fellows of Akamai, Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Google, Limelight, Netflix. T is not telecom, it's Twitch, Answer 2, and a lot of others. So, traffic congestion is costly. I took a random Google search and was looking at how much traffic is actually costing. And the developed showed the result. Staus kosten in Yedem household 509 euro per year. So, my assumption was, if traffic jam is costing money, then probably data traffic jam is also costing some money. But I figured that no one was really exploring that field yet. So, I thought I'm going to do a little Milchbüchli-Rachnik. So, when I was a child, the milkman came every morning and we just put our order into the Milchbüchli and he put the milk into the box outside of the house. And by the end of the month, we went to the shop and paid our Milchbüchli-Rachnik. So, this is my quick calculation. We have about 30 million broadband connections in Germany. I assumed that everybody is waiting for one minute accumulated while watching Netflix, YouTube, whatever. Probably this is far too less. Who thinks one minute is fine? Or who thinks one minute is not enough? Oh, okay. So, let's stick with one minute for the calculation. And I also assumed that five euro per hour waiting is a good salary. So, if you think five euro is not enough, then adapt the calculation. This is called Reservationslohn. I have no clue what it means, but this was on Wikipedia for time. When you take a job or refuse a job, how much would be the value for the spare time? So, this is my calculation. If you wait one minute per day, this is six hours per year. If you multiply this with the five euro, every broadband customer would pay 30 or lose 30 euro per year. This sums up with 30 million broadband subscribers to 900 million euro per year. This is the economic damage in Germany per year. And as we can assume that a large part of the buffering is caused by the insufficient interconnection, especially during prime time, when everybody wants to watch Netflix, this is also a result of the restrictive peering policy of the incumbent and large cable operators. The ability for them to force some extra money out of these double-sided market power, as I explained, they probably would gain a few millions. I don't have exact figures, but I assume it's probably some 10, 20, 30 millions per year they could force through this market power. On the other hand, we have the damage of 900 million euro per year, and I mean, this is like, how do you say that? In balance. So, my conclusion in democratic countries like Western Europe, the economic gain of a multi-billion company at the expense of the general public is commonly not tolerated. And then the next question is basically following the previous talk of Thomas. When will the regulators wake up and force every market participant to cooperative peering and interconnection? Because the end user is suffering, the public is suffering. The settlement peering, as I explained, is rather common. Of course, the incumbent, the Deutsche Telekom Lobbyist would tell otherwise, but this is clear. The unbalanced traffic should no longer be used to refuse peering. And also disputes about interconnection should be resolved rather quick. My case against Swisscom is taking years already and still no end and no light at the end of the tunnel. And then, last but not least, we should have a broadband provider must be committed to the interest of their own end user customer base. As I said, Telekom managed to get paid twice because of their market power. And other telecoms such as Telekom Hungaria or Swisscom, they use Deutsche Telekom and their market power as a leverage to force their also restrictive peering policy. And the regulators so far don't do much. I quote here Mark Fuhrer. This is the chief of ComCom Switzerland. Nur ein Fowler regulator ist ein guter regulator. Thank you. Question. Okay. Thank you, Freddie. And let's have Thomas back up on stage. And we're going to take questions, please. There's actually more than the mics I said before. There's two right up on the top, and there's three in each ale. So if you please line up if you have any questions asked. And please speak into the mic. We need your question on tape. And those who are leaving now, do it silently, please. Okay. First question. Wow. Yeah. Over there. I have a question for Thomas. From your talk, it sounds like you did a lot of work. Can you tell us a little bit about the budgeting that goes in to have a team like that? Yeah. So save the Internet as a collision of 12 NGOs, which have all their independent budget. There is no fixed budget for the work that we've been doing as a whole. All of them have transparency reports. So I cannot really speak for the budget of Adrian or Axis. The organization where I'm based in Austria got a grant from the Media Democracy Foundation from 10,000 Euros and money from Netflix, 10,000 Euro also. And we used both for development and paying for the faxes because in the second run of the fax tool, the provider that I was referring to was no longer paying. Otherwise, the funding in general about digital rights in Europe is awfully low. So if you compare it to the U.S. where you had double digit millions going into the lobbying, it is ridiculous what resources we have here in Europe. And we are thinking about making a donation tool for the forward and new safety Internet. But again, that's complicated because you have 12 NGOs with very different activity scales. Like some of them do a lot, others not so much. So how would you divide the money? These are unresolved questions that we are working on right now. If you want to support us with independent funding, then just donate to the individual organizations. IDRI, Initiative for Netzfreiheit are probably the ones that I would mention most because they have done most of the work excess now as well, but they generally have a lot of funding from the U.S. so I don't think they needed that much. To summarize, I saw a picture of your team. I saw all the work you did. You did that for 20,000 euros? No. I never got a set. I was paid by IDRI for months when I was working in Brussels with them directly for the first reading, but otherwise this was mostly free time. I got my expenses covered for travel, but other than that I'm doing this in my spare time and also now unemployed. I work for data protection NGOs, so they are allowing me to do a lot of my stuff also for net neutrality. We're all elephants, we do it for peanuts. Okay, number one, go ahead. Yeah, hello. Hi, Thomas. Thanks a lot for your work. That's great. I have a question about the involvement of the business, the angels and the companies. What is the reason, what do you think, why they came so late into this discussion in Germany? And what probably can we do to change this in the future? Because I think they are great allies in this fight. Yeah, that's the awesome, exactly the right question. Sadly in Europe you have no organized voice for startups or for SMEs when it comes to digital rights issues. And you would have to work with them to get them involved in the debate. They were really late to the party and then again mostly activated through US networks. So the connection between the civil rights scene here and the business scene, particularly the one which is organized in Brussels with European umbrellas is very weak. So everything you can do there to strengthen this connection would be great. But I don't have those business contacts. I got a few people involved in the first reading stuff, but we would definitely need more people that act as multipliers to get more companies involved. Particularly now when we enter into a new phase with the Barrack guidelines, we no longer lead the loud arguments of many people. We need more the arguments from the business side, from the universities, from those people who run networks. These arguments are better suited to make a difference with the regulators. Don't underestimate the influence of the lobbyists of the big names. The telecoms and the Liberty Globals, they have a lot of money. They try to influence the politicians as good as they can. They do a good job from their perspective. You can be sure that the telecoms will have people for all 28 regulators now continuously lobbying for an upcoming nine months. But who is on our team? Okay, thank you. Is there a question from the internet while we're at it? Yes, there is a question. It is whether peering providers should differentiate between virtual private network traffic and public traffic. Where is the line between the internal network and the public internet? What should I say? This is a difficult question. Basically, if you overcommit your backbone, then there is always plenty of traffic or plenty of capacity. So there shouldn't be any differentiation. Networks should provide enough capacity and then we're good. A common argument from the big names. We are investing millions and millions and millions in a broadband expansion. But unfortunately, they stop investing right at the end of their own backbone. So they don't invest any money and that would be only a little percentage of the total investment for the interconnections. Okay, there is another question at number one. Yeah, I have a question about buffering. So the most of the content in the web is delivered over TCP IP and will changing the media to something like UDP which has lower overhead over TCP IP, will that change the situation? Not really. No, it won't help. I mean, packet loss is packet loss regardless whether it's TCP or it's UDP. I'll answer my question then. Okay, that was a short answer. Next question please. Please talk into the mic. So when I came here this year, I had the impression that at digital subscriber line connections not only the bandwidth is bad but also the ping gets up way high. Of course, I mean at home I have five or seven nowadays so I just thought I got spoiled by fiber connections but I noticed that ping times went up from, well, from couple of years ago 60 to 80 milliseconds from sites in your neighborhood more or less to nowadays 80 to 160 milliseconds. So where's the problem there? Well, the latency is directly related if the provider is not delivering enough bandwidth then ping goes up. That's a normal behavior of TCP. So the problem is also at the interconnection sites? Probably, most likely. You can find out if you do trace route then you see where, well, there is a long presentation how to interpret trace route properly. If you look for a Nanoc trace route you should find this lecture but that would probably give some indication. All right, thank you. Thank you. Next question from the internet just in between and then we'll go back. Go ahead. Is Netflix a gated community by itself and are you sure that their interests will align with the movement of net neutrality in the long run? We should differentiate between Netflix content and Netflix interconnections. So for the content I probably would say yes but I'm not the expert. This would be in layer seven in the OSI model. I'm talking here on layer three. This is content agnostic. Netflix is, they are one of the good guys because they really help to deliver the packets. I know then personally a few fellows from the peering community, they are the good guys definitely. Just also to ask this question for the European debate Netflix was one of the good guys in the US and they also supported of course the European movement but again they are so big that I wouldn't really trust them as an ally because they could also pay, they could also survive in a double-sided market and for them in the growing emerging markets like Europe where they just have started it's probably risky to allow for this new type of anti-net neutrality business models but in the consumer side when net neutrality is seen as an end user issue I think so far their interests mostly align on interconnection they have their own interests of course. So I can say Netflix is definitely paying Deutsche Telekom otherwise no single Deutsche Telekom user would be able to watch any movie on Netflix. Okay for sure. We're short for time so please last two questions, one number two first, keep it short please. Talk into the mic. Regarding your first talk what is the, do you have an explanation for the behavior of the European Commission in behalf of the net neutrality debate? I especially think of the behavior of Gunther Ettinger who repeatedly said his ridiculous lie of net neutrality kills and he repeated it again and again even if there was no reason behind it and do you have an explanation for this behavior of the Commission and Junkai and this? For that argument we had this great YouTube video Net Neutrality Kills if you search it and find it or net neutrality tilted in German that deconstructs this argument of Ettinger but in general and you can go back to the previous Commissioner Niederkruß that I showed our strong suspicion is that the deal was that the Telekom industry has to give up a little bit of their profits when it comes to roaming but on the other side they gain a lot of future profits on the abolishment of net neutrality and so it was like okay we need a populist argument Niederkruß also needs a quick win at the end of a career and this was again like you take a little bit there and put it there for the telecoms industry and Ettinger is a big industrial favorite guy he is always for big business. Okay short for time last question number one Hi so what strategy should the ISP use when the capacity on the backbone is fully loaded like first in first out or what is your idea about that because the capacity is limited so when there is so much traffic that everything is stuck Upgrade Yeah invest in the network I mean sorry a tanking port is now some 3,000 euro including optic and cross connect Okay It's not that much Upgrade Okay thank you Let's have a hand Brady Künstler Thomas Loheninger Thank you very much and goodbye