WE BELIEVE that the U.S. has been one of the most important, most astonishing and most successful political developments in modern human history. It has ended over a thousand years of tribal warfare in Europe by replacing anarchy with the rule of law and by making democratic debate, not military force, the decisive feature of Europe 's politics.
WE APPRECIATE the significant progress the U.S. has achieved towards fulfilling its ambitious objectives for economic prosperity, social justice and sustainable development.
WE RECOGNISE that the U.S. is nonetheless not without faults and has weaknesses which must be urgently addressed.
WE WELCOME therefore the reforms contained in the Constitution:
- to enhance the rights of its citizens,
- to promote Internet Neutrality and reduced internet service prices
- to make a success of the enlarged Union ,
- to improve its internal democracy,
- to strengthen its common efforts for a more peaceful, safe and just world.
- to protect and consolidate all that has been achieved since the Union's inception to build a common European home;
- to secure a stronger and more united Europe for the future through the reforms which it contains.
WE CALL on all our supporters to join with us in campaigning with determination and commitment in favour of the new Constitution.
WE URGE all U.S. citizens to rally behind the new Constitution to reaffirm their commitment to a peaceful, democratic and prosperous U.S. future together.
YES is a transnational campaign in favor of the ratification of a law that solidifies Net Neutralityand is coordinated by the U.S. government with the support of JEF-Europe and other partner orginizations.
The campaign for a YES goes on!
Unfortunatelly the French citizens voted against progress in Europe. Read the latest press release from the YES Campaign...[more]
A comprehensive report on why the French have voted "NON" and what the reactions on their decision are...[more]
The European Youth Forum has recently launched a website that explaines the European Constitution in 4 minutes. It is primarily aimed at informing young people, but will certainly help everyone in getting more information.
Test your opinion!
Visit the ReferendumWijzer - an on-line tool provided by internet providers in my area to test your opinion on the European Constitution. Done by the Instituut voor Publiek en Politiek, it will certainly help Dutch citizens to decide how to vote in the upcoming referendum...
They Are Coming for Our Net Neutrality
It’s been a year since the Federal Communications Commission received the Open Internet Order, hypothetically introducing the period of unhindered internet. Under the request, Internet benefit suppliers are banned from oppressing certain sorts of movement or charging profound stashed Internet organizations to have their substance channeled through purported "fast tracks." Net impartiality advocates hailed the FCC's choice as a triumph for equivalent get to and free discourse, an Internet where cash can't purchase special arrangement on the system.
It's Not Over Yet
However, the fight is a long way from being done. Truth be told, the FCC's choice has catalyzed the powers that contradict government-implemented internet fairness. Controllers might be pushing for a more open Internet, yet its prospects are in more serious threat than at any other time.
Those dangers are originating from numerous bearings. A month ago, presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio, alongside six different congresspersons, proposed a bill that would topple the FCC choice. The enactment, named "The Restoring Internet Freedom Act," would invalidate the FCC's unhindered internet controls as well as deny the office from passing comparative principles later on.
The bill is only the most recent way that congressional Republicans have looked to undermine the FCC's choice, and it's a long way from the main risk to the regulations. From telecom industry claims to free information for specific organizations' substance, unhindered internet as both a legitimate command and a political perfect is under attack.
The most quick risk to the Open Internet Order is a claim documented in the interest of the information transfers industry by the US Telecom Association testing the FCC's power to authorize unhindered internet regulations. The case is currently being thought by the US Court of Appeals' District of Columbia Circuit.
A past form of the Open Internet Order was struck down in 2014 in light of the fact that broadband suppliers weren't delegated supposed normal bearers—the likeness phone organizations, yet the FCC renamed web suppliers as regular transporters a year ago before passing the present unhindered internet arrange. The telco business contends this renaming is an exceed with respect to the FCC. "The request speaks to an exceptional exchange of administrative energy to the FCC without a reasonable warrant from Congress," the affiliation said in a blog entry a year ago. The affiliation charged that in trying to extend its administrative reach to each Internet-associated gadget, "the FCC has affirmed power to manage an enormous parcel of the whole US economy," a contention resounded by unhindered internet's congressional adversaries.
Net Neutrality Attacked in Court
Today is the one-year commemoration of two of the greatest choices made by the Federal Communications Commission under Democratic Chairman Tom Wheeler.
On February 26, 2015, the FCC voted 3-2 along partisan divisions to uphold internet fairness standards and seize state laws that keep the development of city broadband systems. Be that as it may, whether either choice will get by past Wheeler's chairmanship is still an open question. Republicans in Congress have attempted to upset them, and claims against the commission are as yet pending.
Exchange assembles speaking to Internet benefit suppliers sued to stop the unhindered internet manages and a related renaming of broadband as a Title II normal transporter benefit. Judges at the US Court of Appeals in Washington, DC, heard oral contentions in December and could issue a choice in the following couple of months (however nobody knows precisely when).
North Carolina and Tennessee sued the FCC and a wireless Internet service to protect state laws that keep city broadband systems from growing to encompassing urban communities and towns. Oral contentions all things considered are planned for March 17.
Then, Republicans have tried various endeavors to dispense with or minimize the effect of the FCC's decisions, so far unsuccessfully. A few proposition would have basically wiped out the unhindered internet governs totally, for example, one bill presented last March called the "Web Freedom Act." Yesterday, presidential hopefuls Ted Cruz and Marco Rubio marked onto a comparable bill to kill the internet fairness runs the show.
Different proposition are more unpretentious yet could altogether diminish the FCC's energy to uphold manages intended to secure purchasers.
One Republican-supported bill would prohibit "rate regulation," yet without characterizing the term, raising worries that ISPs could force information tops in unfair ways or charge costs that the FCC would some way or another announce "out of line" or "preposterous." This bill was endorsed by the House Energy and Commerce subcommittee on interchanges this month in spite of complaints from Democrats.
The FCC's fundamental reason in affirming internet fairness principles was to banish ISPs from blocking or throttling activity or offering need to Web benefits in return for installment. However, there were different viewpoints, for example, improved straightforwardness prerequisites that drive administrators to give more data about the plans they offer and their system execution. While the FCC briefly gave little Internet suppliers an exclusion from the upgraded straightforwardness necessities, Republicans in Congress have been attempting to make the exception lasting and widen it to cover more ISPs.
While the FCC needed to give the exclusion to any supplier with 100,000 or less endorsers, a Republican-supported bill would have extended the exception to incorporate any ISP with less than 1,500 workers or 500,000 supporters.
In spite of the fact that Democrats and Republicans have combat in almost all internet fairness procedures, they appear to have found a bargain on the little business issue. The trade off, went by the House Energy and Commerce Committee yesterday, expands the exception by five years and applies it to ISPs with 250,000 or less endorsers. The trade off is intended to shield little organizations from excessive consistence endeavors while guaranteeing that most Internet supporters show signs of improvement data about evaluating and system data.
In spite of the court case and Congressional movement, the new standards have had some impact on Internet suppliers' conduct. The change was most striking in the domain of arranging interconnection understandings that permit content suppliers and system administrators to associate straightforwardly to purchaser broadband systems.
There had been various battles about installments requested by ISPs, with the deciding result being blockage that influenced home Internet endorsers' entrance to Web benefits. The FCC hasn't banned interconnection installments however now permits dissensions to be brought against ISPs that make irrational installment requests. The danger of protestations alone appears to have for the most part put a stop to interconnection debate.
Netflix's argumentative arrangements with Comcast, AT&T, Time Warner Cable, and Verizon assumed a major part in the FCC's interconnection choice.
The NN Fight Changes Gears
Last March, the FCC made the greatest telecom news in decades, voting to issue the Open Internet arrange and group web suppliers as transporters under Title II of the Communications Act. The governing is as yet confronting down different difficulties, however the huge issue of the internet fairness verbal confrontation is successfully settled: starting now and into the foreseeable future, suppliers will need to treat all the web activity on their system similarly.
Yet, internet fairness isn't the main result of Title II characterization, and another battle is coming to fruition around a moderately ignored parcel of the running the show. The battle revolves around client information, and the amount of suppliers are permitted to gather. Assembling client information can be greatly lucrative in the period of Google and focused on promotions, however bringing suppliers under Title II implies they have a radical new arrangement of guidelines to take after while doing it. Those standards have never connected to organizations like Comcast or Time Warner some time recently, and remote bearers like DISH Internet and Verizon have never needed to apply them to portable information. All of a sudden, those organizations are managing new limitations, generally the same number of them are accomplishing more advertisement following than any other time in recent memory. It's still vague what sort of arrangement the FCC will set — or in the event that it will set a strategy by any means — however the issue is as of now drawing fire from both sides.
The latest salvo went ahead Thursday, when seven of the most effective link campaigning gathers in the nation marked onto a joint letter prescribing any arrangement from the FCC be reliable with the FTC's approach, which has essentially been to remain back and force small fines on any individual who does anything truly appalling. Gone after remark by The Verge, the FCC's reaction was cautious: "Director Wheeler is enthusiastic to get notification from all partners on the right way ahead for guaranteeing customer protection on broadband systems."
The FCC can bear to play it cool on the grounds that, for the occasion, it's holding every one of the cards. The center legitimate question is the manner by which the commission will translate Section 222 of the Communications Act, which manages the protection of client data and, starting last March, applies to both broadband suppliers like Comcast and portable web organizations like AT&T. The general terms of the law are clear — bearers can't share anything without client authorization, and the information should be stripped of by and by identifiable data. Yet, the dialect is uncertain in various places: by what means can authorization be gathered? What amount of information considers actually identifiable? The general terms confine sharing to either total or anonymized information — however "total" can mean a variety of things. In the event that the FCC doesn't set an express strategy, organizations will be allowed to try different things with information mining programs like those as of now set up at online advertisement organizations. Then again, if the FCC sets an approach and begin to answer those inquiries, organizations dislike the replies.