The problem here is that this was badly put together legislation. I don't think the idea of net neutrality was actually debated at all in reality. The need to abolish mobile data roaming charges in the EU was front and centre of the needs of these MEP's constituents minds and they would not vote this down, it would've been mad for them politically. Whoever wrote this piece of legislation is to blame here.
I would be very surprised if this didn't come back for debate in another form prior to it's adoption.
There is if the set of legislators that are in favor of the end to mobile roaming charges doesn't overlap exactly with the set of legislators in favor of net neutrality. In that case, the number of people who vote in favor of the package might be the intersection of the people in favor of the two things, which is strictly smaller than the set of people in favor of one or the other.
Whoever wrote this piece of legislation is to blame here.
But just that is politics!
I heard that now for years, that this is the best practice approach, that is used in many countries: Put together one bad rules with one or two good laws. And when you want to be sure, that the whole package will be voted for, just put some poison-pill in -- something that will bring up (stupid) voters up against those people that vote against it.
What we get: We get cheaper roaming but may lose the future (the US is already so much ahead of Europe, when it comes to online-services and online-startups). This really is old Europe! (I as European would even say stupid Europe!)
Comments
The problem here is that this was badly put together legislation. I don't think the idea of net neutrality was actually debated at all in reality. The need to abolish mobile data roaming charges in the EU was front and centre of the needs of these MEP's constituents minds and they would not vote this down, it would've been mad for them politically. Whoever wrote this piece of legislation is to blame here.
I would be very surprised if this didn't come back for debate in another form prior to it's adoption.
That's not how it works. Amendments to the proposed law are voted individually, there was never any danger of having to reject the whole law.
There were amendments to close each of the problematic loopholes regarding net neutrality, but they didn't pass the vote.
There is if the set of legislators that are in favor of the end to mobile roaming charges doesn't overlap exactly with the set of legislators in favor of net neutrality. In that case, the number of people who vote in favor of the package might be the intersection of the people in favor of the two things, which is strictly smaller than the set of people in favor of one or the other.
Classic poison pill maneuver.
But just that is politics!
I heard that now for years, that this is the best practice approach, that is used in many countries: Put together one bad rules with one or two good laws. And when you want to be sure, that the whole package will be voted for, just put some poison-pill in -- something that will bring up (stupid) voters up against those people that vote against it.
What we get: We get cheaper roaming but may lose the future (the US is already so much ahead of Europe, when it comes to online-services and online-startups). This really is old Europe! (I as European would even say stupid Europe!)
That's why you have amendments.