Agrégateur de flux

 

I liked the book more than either of these guys. I think it is one of the best things I have read about how the military needs to change to move from the Industrial Age to the Information Age.

I‘ve written a review that I am told is going to run in Marine Corps Gazette’ s June issue. When it does, I shall endeavor to run an excerpt and if possible a link to the whole thing.

New America/Thomas E. Ricks

Russia will reportedly spend some 7 billion rubles ($140 million) to build a new high-speed helicopter.

The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), invited on Tuesday May 5th to the seminar: ‘Network Neutrality: Challenges and Responses in the EU and in the US’. “ Given the fact that “in Europe, key aspects of net neutrality regulation remain controversial and general opinion still differs on all aspects of net neutrality, even on its definition”, the seminar, chaired by Colin Blackman (Director, Digital Forum Unit, CEPS), aimed to “compare the approach adopted in the US with the current debate in Europe.”

 Scott Marcus (Independent Consultant):

 How should we define Net Neutrality?

There is a bunch of different definitions and actually it is very hard to find a ‘one size fit all’ definition for net neutrality:

     -. Is it the ability of all Internet end-users to access and distribute information or run applications exercising their choices?

     -. Is it the absence of unreasonable discrimination on the part of network operators in transmitting Internet traffic?

     -. Is it the assurance that all traffic on the Internet is threaten equally, whatever its source, content or destination?

 Network neutrality could be said to be at the heart of a web of crucial issues that appropriately concern European citizens. Indeed, net neutrality is the heart of a web of public concerns:

We distinguish between Direct and Indirect linkages:

Direct linkages to anti-competitive behaviour: innovation and investment, privacy and data protection, consumer awareness, empowerment, and protection, and freedom of expression.

Indirect linkages to network and information security: broadband policy, Internet governance, and more.

 What matters when speaking about net-neutrality?

Technical Aspects: Quality of Experience (QoE)

The Quality of service (QoS) parameters and mechanisms are important to enable network operators to design, build and manage their networks, but they are not directly visible to end-users.

Crucial for the end-users, however is the quality that they personally experience during their use of a service.

These Quality of Experience (QoE) requirements are strongly dependent on the application. Some are sensitive to delay.

E-Mail has little sensitivity to packet loss and delay.

Real-time two way Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) tends to be highly sensitive- delays greater than some 150 msec cause problems.

Real-time two-way videoconferencing is similarly sensitive, and with greater bandwidth consumption.

One-way video may or may not be sensitive, depending on user expectations for how quickly the stream starts (zapping time).

Economic background of network neutrality

At least three distinctions:

Quality differentiation and price differentiation are well-understood practices. In the absence of anticompetitive discrimination, it generally benefits both, producers and consumers.

Another view: a two-sided market:

Internet can be thought as a two-sided platform, with network operators serving d a platform connecting providers of content with consumers. Disputes are only on how costs and profits should be divided between the network operators and the two or more sides of the market

Economic foreclosure: Foreclosure occurs when a firm that has market power in one segment attempts to project that market power into vertically related market segments where competition would otherwise lead to efficient outcomes.

 What do the stakeholder think of this?

The European Commission conducted a public consultation on net neutrality at the end of 2012, with an eye to a legislative initiative in 2013.

 

The public consultation (2012-2013):

• In the consultation citizens were troubled by most forms of traffic management but more by some forms than others.
• A one page summary of the consultation appears in the Impact Assessment for the Telecommunication Single Market (TSM), but the Commission never published a comprehensive analysis of the results.
• The 131 non-confidential textual stakeholders responses were publicly available, and generally thoughtful and of high quality, thus enabling me to complete the public consultation in abbreviated form based on a sample of responses
• We gratefully acknowledge the Commission’s assistance in tabulating more than 400 multiple-choice (citizen) responses to the public consultation.

 

What did the consultation dealt with?

 

1)Current management practices in Europe.

2)   Appropriate versus inappropriate forms of traffic management.

3)   Opportunities and risks associated with new services.

4)   Deep packet inspection and its implications for pricacu and data protection.

5)   The risk of divergent policy interventions among the Member States.

6)   The path to be taken going forward.

 Consultation results:

• Most NRAs, ISPs, content providers and consumer’s advocates considered traffic management to be appropriate under suitable preconditions.
• Consumer advocates and other civil society organisations appear deeply troubled by limitations on Voice over IP; but network operators view this differently
• There was widespread agreement that for a network operator to prioritise its own traffic ahead of traffic for applications that compete with its own services is problematic.

 European regulatory views:

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) is committed to the open Internet and believes that the existing regulatory tools, when fully implemented, should enable NRSAs to address net-neutrality related concerns.

Berec in his annual report 2013 stated that very few NRAs have reported specific relevant net neutrality incidents. The prevailing approach among Nras is that possible deviations from net neutrality are dealt with on a case by case basis. There is a wide agreement among national regulators that the existing tools enable NRAs to address competition concerns related to net neutrality for the time being.

In the year 2012 instead on his consultation report, Berec stated that regulation should not be unnecessarily intrusive, since flexibility appears indispensable in such a fast-changing environment.

 Regulation: EU

In the European framework, market power is a key concern. Regulation addresses last mile market power in the fixed network, both for the PSTN (public switched telephone network) and for the Internet, thus fostering competition.

Internet interconnection is generally unregulated to the extend that market power does not seem to be a concern.

During the year 2009, the regulatory framework was revisioned:

 The ability of end users to access content, applications or services of their choice is now an explicit goal of European policy.

Providers of electronic communication services must inform end users of their practices in regard to traffic, management and provide end users with the right to change providers without penalty if they are dissatisfied with a change in these practices.

 Differences btw the US and the EU

• The US regulatory approach to network neutrality responds to different circumstances than those relevant to Europe.
• The Overall US regulatory approach is partly a cause and partly a response to a very different marketplace.
• Real consumer choice of an alternative broadband supplier in the US is limited to the point where the threat of consumers switching is no longer felt to constrain the behaviour of network operators.
• The radical US deregulation of 2002-2005 left the US-FCC with the minimal ability to regulate broadband services; as a result, the US debate has been dominated by issues of legal sustainability rather than by policy goals.
• The US regulatory approach to network neutrality responds to different circumstances than those relevant to Europe.
• The overall US regulatory approach is partly a cause and partly a response to a very different marketplace.
• Real consumer choice of an alternative broadband supplier in the US is limited to the point where the threat of consumers switching is no longer felt to constrain the behaviour of network operators.
• The radical US deregulation of 2002-2005 left the US FCC with minimal ability to regulate broadband services; as a result, the US debate has been dominated by issues of legal sustainability rather than by policy goals

 Regulation US:

Telecommunication services are subject to numerous regulatory obligations; information services are subject to few explicit obligations.

Information services were felt not to be subject to market power, so long as basic services were available on a non-discriminatory basis. It was this distinction that historically enabled the FCC to avoid regulating the Internet core.

During the George W. Bush years, the FCC classified broadband access when bundled with Internet service to be an information service (ignoring last mile market power concerns).

Weakened of lifted precompetitive remedies, thus reversing the growth of retail competition for DSL lines.

Lifted non-discrimination obligations.

 The FCC’s Report and Order of March 12th 2015, goes somewhat further than the 2010 Order (the one which had been overturned by the courts).

NO Blocking: (ISPs) shall not block lawful content applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

No throttling: (ISPs) shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or just use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

 Europe: The Telecoms Single Market Regulation

A messy discussion of the Telecom Single Market (TSM) in Europe was kicked off by a weakly conceptualised European Commission proposal in September 2013.

In April 2014 instead, the European Parliament, just before elections, passed a stripped down version.

Network neutrality was small but important part of the original legislative proposal, but together with mobile roaming is the only portion that appears to have survived the subsequent legislative process.

Commission’s net neutrality concerns focused on inconsistent legislation in the Member States (Netherland, Slovenia), not necessarily on any need for different or stricter legislation.

 Aspects to consider:

1)   Does the legislative or regulatory instrument used strike the right balance in preventing harmful divergence, while providing appropriate flexibility?

2)   Does it strike the right balance in preventing harmful differentiation, while permitting non-harmful differentiation?

3)   Does it enable prioritisation of services that legitimately need it, potentially including real time voice and videoconferencing over the public Internet, mission critical services (including public protection and disaster relief (PPDR), and transport, and health?

 Andrea Renda Senior Research Fellow:

 There is no need to state that the devil is in the detail.

Recently, EU policymakers seem to have become obsessed by the concept of ‘neutrality’ when discussing future digital policy. I see a mounting debate in Europe concerning the extension of neutrality; whatever the neutrality is understood to be (cloud, or other services).

The situation we are facing nowadays at the European level is a situation of pure fragmentation. After 12 years of debate we are still struggling on many points and the progress made was very slow. The first proposed Telecom Packages in the years 2007 and 2009 could be seen as the first steps towards a harmonization of the internal market, and the creation of a Single Digital Market, but they were never implemented. 

Member states in the meanwhile took the lead on this manner, imposing national regulations concerning net neutrality.

Concerning the EU-US debate on net neutrality, it is not clear what is emerging.

The only thing they have at the US level and we don’t have at the EU level is a decision. Indeed there is something strange at the EU level but also at the transatlantic level. We need to be carefully and not rushing, the higher risk is that we end up with totally different regulations on both the sides.

 One thing that emerges clearly from the FCC rule is the urgency to try to establish a bright line view. The ultimate outcome, indeed, is most importantly depended by the other rules that are already there.

 Why did we want neutrality in the first place?

 Anonymity of the users: nobody wants it anymore today. Only Anonymous is still in this position. The anonymity of the end users is not a fee on the table anymore.

• Competition and fair business practices: there might be a problem as market power can emerge at all layers of the internet protection, and thus potentially a large IT giant could exploit superior bargaining strength vis-à-vis ISPs.
• Innovation: Is innovation slowing down? Are new ideas, products facing more barriers to entry the market?
• User choice and Openness: End users are not protected against restrictions to content availability and application discrimination applied by platforms located at higher layers.
  Openness is thought to be intended as a means, not an end. It would be a mistake to believe that once net neutrality is mandated, the internet would become open, let alone neutral
• Freedom of expression/Pluralism: Very discussed over the past five/six years. Neutrality at all layers is the wrong answer to this problem, which though is very important. Just try to consider if a neutral search engine foster media pluralism? Personally I don’t think this could work. We need a specific media policy to ensure pluralism, advocating neutrality rules!

 If we are looking for Net neutrality because of the reasons listed above, we are on the wrong track. In my opinion the reason why we might consider Net Neutrality, as the best option is because it minimizes the implementation cost and regulatory errors.

Moreover when dealing with the next attempt of regulation, we should probably look more at the things from a consumer perspective, what this means is that consumers don’t always want 100% neutrality everywhere, there are other areas that are more important for end users. I’m convinced that we have to look at the whole net neutrality issues also from a more social point of view.

 Concluding let me state that:

– Yes! there is a way to implement these rules.

– The European Commission should take courage and give a hint to the implementation of these rules.

– We need to think a lot before translating our considerations, into actions. 

Network Neutrality: Challenge and responses in the EU and in the US

The Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), invited on Tuesday May 5th to the seminar: ‘Network Neutrality: Challenges and Responses in the EU and in the US’. “ Given the fact that “in Europe, key aspects of net neutrality regulation remain controversial and general opinion still differs on all aspects of net neutrality, even on its definition”, the seminar, chaired by Colin Blackman (Director, Digital Forum Unit, CEPS), aimed to “compare the approach adopted in the US with the current debate in Europe.”

 

1. Scott Marcus (Independent Consultant):

 

How should we define Net Neutrality?

There is a bunch of different definitions and actually it is very hard to find a ‘one size fit all’ definition for net neutrality:

Is it the ability of all Internet end-users to access and distribute information or run applications exercising their choices?

Is it the absence of unreasonable discrimination on the part of network operators in transmitting Internet traffic?

Is it the assurance that all traffic on the Internet is threaten equally, whatever its source, content or destination?

 

Network neutrality could be said to be at the heart of a web of crucial issues that appropriately concern European citizens. Indeed, net neutrality is the heart of a web of public concerns:

We distinguish between Direct and Indirect linkages:

Direct linkages to anti-competitive behaviour: innovation and investment, privacy and data protection, consumer awareness, empowerment, and protection, and freedom of expression.

Indirect linkages to network and information security: broadband policy, Internet governance, and more.

 

What matters when speaking about net-neutrality?

Technical Aspects: Quality of Experience (QoE)

The Quality of service (QoS) parameters and mechanisms are important to enable network operators to design, build and manage their networks, but they are not directly visible to end-users.

Crucial for the end-users, however is the quality that they personally experience during their use of a service.

These Quality of Experience (QoE) requirements are strongly dependent on the application. Some are sensitive to delay.

E-Mail has little sensitivity to packet loss and delay.

Real-time two way Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) tends to be highly sensitive- delays greater than some 150 msec cause problems.

Real-time two-way videoconferencing is similarly sensitive, and with greater bandwidth consumption.

One-way video may or may not be sensitive, depending on user expectations for how quickly the stream starts (zapping time).

Economic background of network neutrality

At least three distinctions:

Quality differentiation and price differentiation are well-understood practices. In the absence of anticompetitive discrimination, it generally benefits both, producers and consumers.

Another view: a two-sided market:

Internet can be thought as a two-sided platform, with network operators serving d a platform connecting providers of content with consumers. Disputes are only on how costs and profits should be divided between the network operators and the two or more sides of the market

Economic foreclosure: Foreclosure occurs when a firm that has market power in one segment attempts to project that market power into vertically related market segments where competition would otherwise lead to efficient outcomes.

 

What do the stakeholder think of this?

The European Commission conducted a public consultation on net neutrality at the end of 2012, with an eye to a legislative initiative in 2013.

 

The public consultation (2012-2013):

• In the consultation citizens were troubled by most forms of traffic management but more by some forms than others.
• A one page summary of the consultation appears in the Impact Assessment for the Telecommunication Single Market (TSM), but the Commission never published a comprehensive analysis of the results.
• The 131 non-confidential textual stakeholders responses were publicly available, and generally thoughtful and of high quality, thus enabling me to complete the public consultation in abbreviated form based on a sample of responses
• We gratefully acknowledge the Commission’s assistance in tabulating more than 400 multiple-choice (citizen) responses to the public consultation.

 

What did the consultation dealt with?

1)   Current management practices in Europe.

2)   Appropriate versus inappropriate forms of traffic management.

3)   Opportunities and risks associated with new services.

4)   Deep packet inspection and its implications for pricacu and data protection.

5)   The risk of divergent policy interventions among the Member States.

6)   The path to be taken going forward.

 

 

Consultation results:

Most NRAs, ISPs, content providers and consumer’s advocates considered traffic management to be appropriate under suitable preconditions.

Consumer advocates and other civil society organisations appear deeply troubled by limitations on Voice over IP; but network operators view this differently

There was widespread agreement that for a network operator to prioritise its own traffic ahead of traffic for applications that compete with its own services is problematic.

 

European regulatory views:

The Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications (BEREC) is committed to the open Internet and believes that the existing regulatory tools, when fully implemented, should enable NRSAs to address net-neutrality related concerns.

Berec in his annual report 2013 stated that very few NRAs have reported specific relevant net neutrality incidents. The prevailing approach among Nras is that possible deviations from net neutrality are dealt with on a case by case basis. There is a wide agreement among national regulators that the existing tools enable NRAs to address competition concerns related to net neutrality for the time being.

In the year 2012 instead on his consultation report, Berec stated that regulation should not be unnecessarily intrusive, since flexibility appears indispensable in such a fast-changing environment.

 

Regulation: EU

In the European framework, market power is a key concern. Regulation addresses last mile market power in the fixed network, both for the PSTN (public switched telephone network) and for the Internet, thus fostering competition.

Internet interconnection is generally unregulated to the extend that market power does not seem to be a concern.

During the year 2009, the regulatory framework was revisioned:

<!–[if !supportLists]–>o   <!–[endif]–>The ability of end users to access content, applications or services of their choice is now an explicit goal of European policy.

<!–[if !supportLists]–>o   <!–[endif]–>Providers of electronic communication services must inform end users of their practices in regard to traffic, management and provide end users with the right to change providers without penalty if they are dissatisfied with a change in these practices.

 

Differences btw the US and the EU

• The US regulatory approach to network neutrality responds to different circumstances than those relevant to Europe.
• The Overall US regulatory approach is partly a cause and partly a response to a very different marketplace.
• Real consumer choice of an alternative broadband supplier in the US is limited to the point where the threat of consumers switching is no longer felt to constrain the behaviour of network operators.
• The radical US deregulation of 2002-2005 left the US-FCC with the minimal ability to regulate broadband services; as a result, the US debate has been dominated by issues of legal sustainability rather than by policy goals.
• The US regulatory approach to network neutrality responds to different circumstances than those relevant to Europe.
• The overall US regulatory approach is partly a cause and partly a response to a very different marketplace.
• Real consumer choice of an alternative broadband supplier in the US is limited to the point where the threat of consumers switching is no longer felt to constrain the behaviour of network operators.
• The radical US deregulation of 2002-2005 left the US FCC with minimal ability to regulate broadband services; as a result, the US debate has been dominated by issues of legal sustainability rather than by policy goals

 

Regulation US:

Telecommunication services are subject to numerous regulatory obligations; information services are subject to few explicit obligations.

Information services were felt not to be subject to market power, so long as basic services were available on a non-discriminatory basis. It was this distinction that historically enabled the FCC to avoid regulating the Internet core.

During the George W. Bush years, the FCC classified broadband access when bundled with Internet service to be an information service (ignoring last mile market power concerns).

 

Weakened of lifted precompetitive remedies, thus reversing the growth of retail competition for DSL lines.

Lifted non-discrimination obligations.

 

The FCC’s Report and Order of March 12th 2015, goes somewhat further than the 2010 Order (the one which had been overturned by the courts).

NO Blocking: (ISPs) shall not block lawful content applications, services, or non-harmful devices, subject to reasonable network management.

No throttling: (ISPs) shall not impair or degrade lawful Internet traffic on the basis of Internet content, application, or service, or just use of a non-harmful device, subject to reasonable network management.

 

Europe: The Telecoms Single Market Regulation

A messy discussion of the Telecom Single Market (TSM) in Europe was kicked off by a weakly conceptualised European Commission proposal in September 2013.

In April 2014 instead, the European Parliament, just before elections, passed a stripped down version.

Network neutrality was small but important part of the original legislative proposal, but together with mobile roaming is the only portion that appears to have survived the subsequent legislative process.

Commission’s net neutrality concerns focused on inconsistent legislation in the Member States (Netherland, Slovenia), not necessarily on any need for different or stricter legislation.

 

Aspects to consider:

1)   Does the legislative or regulatory instrument used strike the right balance in preventing harmful divergence, while providing appropriate flexibility?

2)   Does it strike the right balance in preventing harmful differentiation, while permitting non-harmful differentiation?

3)   Does it enable prioritisation of services that legitimately need it, potentially including real time voice and videoconferencing over the public Internet, mission critical services (including public protection and disaster relief (PPDR), and transport, and health?

 

Andrea Renda Senior Research Fellow:

 

There is no need to state that the devil is in the detail.

Recently, EU policymakers seem to have become obsessed by the concept of ‘neutrality’ when discussing future digital policy. I see a mounting debate in Europe concerning the extension of neutrality; whatever the neutrality is understood to be (cloud, or other services).

The situation we are facing nowadays at the European level is a situation of pure fragmentation. After 12 years of debate we are still struggling on many points and the progress made was very slow. The first proposed Telecom Packages in the years 2007 and 2009 could be seen as the first steps towards a harmonization of the internal market, and the creation of a Single Digital Market, but they were never implemented. 

Member states in the meanwhile took the lead on this manner, imposing national regulations concerning net neutrality.

Concerning the EU-US debate on net neutrality, it is not clear what is emerging.

The only thing they have at the US level and we don’t have at the EU level is a decision. Indeed there is something strange at the EU level but also at the transatlantic level. We need to be carefully and not rushing, the higher risk is that we end up with totally different regulations on both the sides.

 

One thing that emerges clearly from the FCC rule is the urgency to try to establish a bright line view. The ultimate outcome, indeed, is most importantly depended by the other rules that are already there.

 

Why did we want neutrality in the first place?

 

• Anonymity of the users: nobody wants it anymore today. Only Anonymous is still in this position. The anonymity of the end users is not a fee on the table anymore.
• Competition and fair business practices: there might be a problem as market power can emerge at all layers of the internet protection, and thus potentially a large IT giant could exploit superior bargaining strength vis-à-vis ISPs.
• Innovation: Is innovation slowing down? Are new ideas, products facing more barriers to entry the market?
• User choice and Openness: End users are not protected against restrictions to content availability and application discrimination applied by platforms located at higher layers.
  Openness is thought to be intended as a means, not an end. It would be a mistake to believe that once net neutrality is mandated, the internet would become open, let alone neutral
• Freedom of expression/Pluralism: Very discussed over the past five/six years. Neutrality at all layers is the wrong answer to this problem, which though is very important. Just try to consider if a neutral search engine foster media pluralism? Personally I don’t think this could work. We need a specific media policy to ensure pluralism, advocating neutrality rules!

 

If we are looking for Net neutrality because of the reasons listed above, we are on the wrong track. In my opinion the reason why we might consider Net Neutrality, as the best option is because it minimizes the implementation cost and regulatory errors.

Moreover when dealing with the next attempt of regulation, we should probably look more at the things from a consumer perspective, what this means is that consumers don’t always want 100% neutrality everywhere, there are other areas that are more important for end users. I’m convinced that we have to look at the whole net neutrality issues also from a more social point of view.

 

Concluding let me state that:

– Yes! there is a way to implement these rules.

– The European Commission should take courage and give a hint to the implementation of these rules.

– We need to think a lot before translating our considerations, into actions. 

 

Patrick Zingerle

 

 

 

Classé dans:Actualités, BREVES

MEXICO CITY — Carmen Aristegui is a likable hero for Mexico’s perennially embattled media. Given to little makeup or hairstyling, the 51-year-old radio personality has gained a reputation for her lack of pretension. A few weeks ago, I met her at the offices of her online newspaper, Aristegui Noticias, located in a run-down building in the unassuming Anzures district of Mexico City. The setting is more reminiscent of a basement start-up than the bureau of a celebrity broadcaster, whose radio show once regularly drew an average of 15 million listeners.

“I like to use the stairs, it’s the only exercise I get these days,” she explains by way of an apology for the sluggish elevator. After warmly greeting her news team, Aristegui leads the way to a closet-like back office.

There, over the buzz of a worn-out electric fan, she recounts the story of her dismissal in March from MVS Comunicaciones, the Mexican radio and satellite television provider. In Aristegui’s telling, it is a tale of government collusion. MVS, on the other hand, claims that it fired Aristegui and cancelled her popular morning radio program because she refused to accept the station’s new editorial guidelines. But she links her dismissal to her reporting on a major conflict-of-interest scandal with the president at its center.

Last November, Aristegui revealed that Grupo Higa, a major public contractor that won millions of dollars in state business, built a lavish home for the wife of President Enrique Peña Nieto. The investigation into the $7 million luxury mansion, dubbed the “White House” owing to its white interior and color-changing lighting system, sparked subsequent revelations about additional properties owned by Higa and used by the presidency’s inner circles.

“There was no business rationale to cancel the newscast except that MVS was under very strong political pressure, especially after the White House investigation,” says Aristegui from across the table. “It is obvious that the company used a pretext, and that this decision was very probably made by the government.”

She is now taking her fight to the courts. A Mexico City judge has ordered a hearing scheduled for May 12 to determine whether MVS violated its contract with the radio host, and if she should be reinstated. “When MVS refused to negotiate, it left me with no choice but to go to the courts,” she says. “This is not only about my journalistic work or my job. It is about freedom of expression and defending audiences’ right to information.”

The case has whipped up public opinion, turning Aristegui into Mexico’s latest martyr for press freedom. Her supporters across the country have joined six rights organizations to file so-called “amparos,” a Mexican legal procedure intended to protect human rights, in protest of her dismissal.

Her firing has also unleashed a wave of intrigue and conspiracy that would make House of Cards creator Beau Willimon proud. Some people assert that MVS let go of Aristegui to curry favor with the government ahead of an auction for broadcasters’ airwaves next year. Others suggest that the president demanded her dismissal out of fear that her promotion of MéxicoLeaks, a small whistle-blowing website, would give its investigations a higher profile, allowing revelations of more government scandals to reach national audiences. And there is even talk that MVS had lost an important ally against the government — the powerful telecoms mogul Carlos Slim — making the station more vulnerable to political pressure.

Critics say that a pervasive culture of self-censorship in Mexico’s broadcast media contributes to a lack of watchdog journalism in the country. The politically connected Televisa controls almost 70 percent of the broadcast television business, and media owners depend on concessions granted by a regulator that has historically been influenced by special interests. “The level of tolerance for journalism critical of the government is extremely low in Mexico because we don’t have a sufficiently developed democratic system,” Aristegui argues.

But a number of her former superiors and colleagues have criticized the beloved yet battle-prone journalist for her lack of regard for authority. Moreover, there is no proof implicating the government in Aristegui’s banishment from the airwaves. (As Salvador Camarena, Aristegui’s trusted former MVS colleague, admitted to me: “we have no smoking gun.”)

The commotion around Aristegui’s case highlights the government’s sinking credibility. Her no-frills style strikes a sharp contrast to the nattily-dressed, aloof Peña Nieto, whose perfectly coiffed hair was as much a talking point in his December 2012 election victory as his lofty reform promises. Almost three years later, he has made important economic strides. But he has yet to implement tough measures to crack down on corruption or assure Mexicans that the ruling Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) — once synonymous with greed and a lust for power — has changed its stripes.

Aristegui, meanwhile, has won huge admiration among anti-corruption crusaders and free speech advocates for her unflinching attacks against Mexico’s political elite. Over her 25-year career, she has uncovered a prostitution ring run by a party chief, a pedophile priest protected by a powerful Roman Catholic cardinal, and the alleged involvement of Televisa in a Central American drug-smuggling ring.

When Aristegui blew the lid off the “White House” story last November, the Peña Nieto government was already reeling from accusations of incompetence and corruption. The previous month, 43 students from the Teachers’ College of Ayotzinapa in rural Mexico were allegedly murdered by a corrupt mayor in cahoots with criminal gangs. The scandal sparked an international outcry, not to mention massive protests against the government, whose gaffe-prone communication strategy made matters worse. “Carmen became the pebble in Peña Nieto’s shoe,” said Denise Dresser, a long-time collaborator of Aristegui’s and a former MVS pundit.

But the government isn’t the only institution Aristegui has antagonized, according to numerous interviews with her colleagues and former employers. In 2002, Aristegui hosted a radio show for the broadcasting company Grupo Imagen. But her boss at the time, Pedro Ferriz de Con, fired her over disagreements about the company’s editorial line: “She said terrible things about Imagen on-air during her time there. Imagine how the audience took it?” he said.

In another incident in 2008, W Radio, a joint-venture between Spain’s Grupo Prisa and Televisa, decided not to renew her contract. According to Daniel Moreno, her boss at the time, she arrived at the office late and refused to take commercial breaks, depriving the station of a vital source of revenue. As the bottom line suffered, the company presented her with new rules, Moreno said. But after months of negotiations, she backed out, claiming the station wanted to censor her.

In many of her spats with employers Aristegui has cried foul, turning up the political heat by implying that the powers that be have called for her head. According to Aristegui, Ferriz and businessman Alfonso Romo, a stakeholder in Imagen, had a personal vendetta against her because she exposed a sex scandal involving a highly respected and powerful religious order in Mexico. She also claims that she was dismissed from W Radio due to her criticism of the derisively named “Televisa Law” – a measure passed in 2006 that was widely interpreted as giving the powerful station privileges in gaining new broadcast concessions and expanding its market dominance. “On the program we had months of debate about this law, and it infuriated Televisa,” she said.

Perhaps all this should have sounded the alarm for MVS owner Joaquín Vargas Gómez when he hired her. But the tycoon was seduced by Aristegui’s massive viewership, and loaded her contract with deal sweeteners. This included an ethics code spelling out her editorial control over her show, an MVS ombudsman to safeguard audiences’ rights, and an independent arbitrator to intercede in editorial disputes between her and the company.

Yet Aristegui has a habit of repeating herself. In 2011, the firebrand journalist was let go after Felipe Calderón, the president at the time, called Vargas demanding that Aristegui apologize or be fired for reporting rumors he had a drinking problem. According to Aristegui, Vargas allegedly begged her to yield to the president’s request, saying that he was in the middle of negotiating with the government to hang onto a multi-million dollar broadcast concession. But Aristegui refused, choosing instead to publicize what happened. “Why should I have to equivocate and apologize, and accept the temper tantrum of a president?” she said at her office. Vargas later reinstated her after her huge fan base protested.

Aristegui claimed that the incident did not damage her relationship with Vargas, but that problems resurfaced with the White House investigation. She says he asked her not to air the report on her radio show (requesting her “understanding”). So she broke the story on her own website. MVS has not responded to the allegations.

In the months that followed the White House revelations, her reporting grew relentless, sparking an on-air showdown with her employer that led to her dismissal in March. “There was a loss of confidence in Carmen,” said Ezra Shabot, another journalist at MVS. “The owners felt that they were losing their space on the radio, that she was the owner of it.”

Tensions reached a climax when Aristegui announced on March 10 that her team of investigative journalists at MVS would help promote Méxicoleaks, a new digital tool founded by eight Mexican media outlets and civil society groups courting would-be whistleblowers to help expose state corruption.

Infuriated, MVS issued a series of news bulletins that appeared in the middle of Aristegui’s show, accusing her team of using the MVS brand name to endorse Méxicoleaks deceptively and illegally. It then fired two leading journalists on her investigative team, Daniel Lizárraga and Irving Huerta, both of whom were involved in the Méxicoleaks story.

Aristegui refused to accept their dismissal and picked a fight with the company on-air. “Instead of punishing them we should be rewarding them!” she said on her March 13 broadcast. MVS retaliated, declaring to its audiences it would not accept her “ultimatum,” and published new editorial guidelines on its website imposing restrictions on content.

On March 15, MVS said it would reinstate Lizárraga and Huerta if Aristegui accepted the new editorial rules. But she refused, and that evening received notification from MVS that her show had been cancelled. The next day, news of her firing and that of her 17-member team made headlines, sparking a public uproar.

Aristegui still has a column in the Mexican magazine Reforma and a show on CNN’s Spanish-language program version. But her supporters say that her exile from the airwaves has left a critical gap in the coverage of Mexican politics ahead of important mid-term congressional elections on June 7. The story has also been swept up into wider criticisms of Mexico’s shaky human rights record.

In the same breath that media reports have referenced Aristegui’s firing, they point out that attacks on reporters in Mexico are ticking upward. According to a March investigation by the British rights group Article 19, violence against members of the press rose 80 percent in the first two years of the Peña Nieto administration, relative to the six-year average of his predecessor. The New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists also ranks Mexico among the world’s top 10 countries for journalist killings, and impunity in such cases is as high as 90 percent.

But the crux of the issues in the case of Carmen Aristegui appears to be less about the human rights tale than the slow — and often sporadic — slog toward political reform.

New legislation enacted last July has sought to bring fresh competition into Mexico’s stiflingly uncompetitive broadcast market. It has also created specialized tribunals for media and antitrust matters, helping to fast-track legal procedures. Aristegui’s supporters have utilized the newly formed telecommunications and broadcast courts to file complaints against MVS, claiming that the company’s actions breached the public’s right of access to information. Still, critics argue that these procedures could be bogged down in red tape and that the courts remain over-stretched, lacking both human and financial resources.

“These new legal tools are here to guarantee the rights of journalists and the Mexican people, but it is a big challenge for Mexico’s justice system,” says Aristegui, looking tired for the first time in our interview. Yet the crack in her armor is only momentary. Leaning forward to be heard over the raspy fan, she adds with characteristic zeal: “But it mustn’t drag on, every minute wasted is a minute that the Mexican people lose their right to critical information.”

YURI CORTEZ/AFP/GettyImages

Allgemeines : Anstatt ins Reisebüro zu gehen, buchen immer mehr Menschen ihren Urlaub im Internet. Sie kombinieren Angebote verschiedener Anbieter und wählen seltener eine Pauschalreise. Das Parlament hat sich nun mit dem Ministerrat auf neue Regeln geeinigt, um die Rechte der Verbraucher im Zusammenhang mit Reisebuchungen im Internet zu stärken. Wir haben mit der deutschen Berichterstatterin Birgit Collin-Langen (EVP) gesprochen.

Quelle : © Europäische Union, 2015 - EP

The SMM monitored the implementation of the “Package of measures for the implementation of the Minsk agreements”. The SMM, based on its monitoring – which was restricted by third parties and by security considerations* – observed ongoing fighting in and around Donetsk airport and Shyrokyne.

The SMM noted long periods of calm – followed by intense fighting – in areas in and around the destroyed Donetsk People’s Republic” (“DPR”)-controlled Donetsk airport (8km north-west of Donetsk) and Shyrokyne (20km east of Mariupol).

At the Joint Centre for Control and Co-ordination (JCCC) observation post at “DPR”-controlled Donetsk railway station (8km north-west of Donetsk), JCCC representatives told the SMM that there had been no shelling in the area on the night of 10-11 May. However, whilst at the observation post from 08:05 to 17:00hrs, the SMM heard a total of 105 explosions, and sporadic small arms and heavy machine gun fire.

The SMM noted a calm situation in areas around government-controlled Berdianske (1.5km west of Shyrokyne) in the morning of 11 May. At a regular SMM observation post on the eastern outskirts of the village, however, it observed numerous fresh craters – one just metres from the actual observation post. The SMM observed an additional eight craters in residential areas in the village – caused by 122mm artillery rounds – and a further two, caused by 152mm artillery rounds. Local people told the SMM that the shelling had occurred the previous night.

In nearby Shyrokyne village, the SMM noted that a calm situation prevailed. It observed, however, a crater, which, after analysis, it concluded had been caused by an 82mm mortar. According to local people, the round had killed a 47-year-old man on 29 April. The SMM assessed that the round had been fired from a position to the west. As the SMM was leaving the village at 16.15hrs, it heard small-arms and mortar fire in the north-west of the village.

The general calm in the Berdianske-Shyrokyne area came to an end at 16:30hrs, when an intensive exchange of tank, mortar and anti-aircraft rounds began, which continued even as the SMM left the area at 19.20hrs.   

In government-controlled Luhanske (62km north-east of Donetsk), the SMM noted no ceasefire violations, little or no military movement and a relaxed posture amongst Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel. Numerous Ukrainian Armed Forces interlocutors told the SMM that the situation had been calm in the area over the past few days.

The situation in the Luhansk region remained relatively calm, with the SMM noting two instances of limited shelling[1].

In government-controlled Pervomaiske (16km north-west of Donetsk), Ukrainian Armed Forces soldiers told the SMM that a Pravyy Sektor (Right Sector) medical unit in the area had been replaced by a Ukrainian Armed Forces medical unit.

In government-controlled Stanytsia Luhanska (16km north-east of Luhansk), the SMM noted two houses next to a Ukrainian Armed Forces checkpoint, one destroyed and the other damaged. Checkpoint personnel and local residents told the SMM that a barrage of small arms, anti-aircraft, and automatic grenade launcher fire – emanating from across the bridge in “Lugansk People’s Republic” (“LPR”)-controlled territory – had been directed towards the checkpoint for four hours in the evening of 10 May. Interlocutors explained that a gas explosion had resulted, causing the damage to the houses. A fire brigade was on the scene.

Despite claims that withdrawal of heavy weapons was complete, the SMM observed the following weapons’ movement/presence in areas that are in violation of the Minsk withdrawal lines: (i) in “LPR”-controlled areas, three artillery pieces (122mm D-30); and, (ii) in government-controlled areas, six tanks (T-64).

The SMM noted approximately 70 men and women – overseen by 110 police officers – demonstrate in Odessa, demanding the release of Nadiya Savchenko. The protest was organised by the Batkivshchyna Party. A similar gathering – organised by a student non-governmental organisation – took place in Kyiv, at which 300 men and women demanded the release of the Ukrainian Armed Forces pilot from custody in the Russian Federation. Overseen by six police officers, the protests passed off peacefully.

Also in Kyiv, the spokesperson for the Pravyy Sektor (Right Sector) told the SMM that the Pravyy Sektor volunteer battalion had not integrated into regular Ukrainian military structures. He said one proposal – placing the battalion under the control of the National Guard – had been rejected because the National Guard is under the authority of the Ministry of Internal Affairs, which the interlocutor said had still to be “lustrated”. A subsequent proposal – allowing individual Pravyy Sektor members to enlist in the Armed Forces – was also unacceptable, according to the interlocutor, as it would have entailed the dissolution of the battalion.

The SMM continued to monitor the situation in Kharkiv, Dnepropetrovsk, Kherson, Ivano-Frankivsk, Chernivtsi and Lviv.

 

* Restrictions on SMM access and freedom of movement:

The SMM is restrained in fulfilling its monitoring functions by restrictions imposed by third parties and security considerations including the lack of information on whereabouts of landmines.

The security situation in Donbas is fluid and unpredictable and the cease-fire does not hold everywhere.

• Near “LPR”-controlled Ohulchansk (26km east of Luhansk), the SMM was prevented from travelling to “LPR”-controlled Parkhomenko (29km east of Luhansk) by “LPR” “border guards”, who said a “letter of access” was required if the SMM wished to visit the border zone.
• The SMM was stopped and held for an hour and a half near “LPR”-controlled Komisarivka (61km south-west of Luhansk) by two “LPR” members, who did not recognize the SMM’s right to unhindered access to all areas. The situation was only resolved upon the arrival of four other “LPR” members, who allowed the SMM to proceed.
• Ukrainian Armed Forces personnel stopped and searched an SMM vehicle at a checkpoint near government-controlled Nyzhnie (56km north-west of Luhansk). The patrol was allowed to proceed after five minutes.

 

1]   For a complete breakdown of the ceasefire violations, please see the annexed table.

 

Related Stories

• Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 10 May 2015
• Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission (SMM) to Ukraine based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 8 May 2015
• Latest from OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM), based on information received as of 19:30 (Kyiv time), 7 May 2015

As many of the Member States of the European Union painstakingly, and in many cases painfully, deal with the aftermath of the global financial crisis, the Commission attempts to facilitate and aid their recovery in any way it can.[1] The latest attempt to do so is the establishment of the European Fund for Strategic investment (EFSI). Unfortunately this new creation did not receive the collective round of applause across Europe that one might have expected. Quite the contrary. The reason is rather suspicious accounting. The money, apparently, not only has to come from somewhere, but rather astonishingly, from education. In the wake of last year’s internecine institutional strife in which many, including the Commission, battled valiantly to ring-fence key chunks of the education budget (ironically delaying 2014 Jean Monnet applications until the Parliament had approved the MFF), education and its ancillary R&D and innovations budgets appear to have become a prime target for ambitious, but as-yet ambiguous plans by Commission President Juncker. Is this particularly wise? The result may ultimately transfer €2.7 billion from Horizon2020 (currently 3.5% of the overall 2013-2020 budget), to the new EFSI to take effect between 2015-2020, with the apparently bulletproof intention of creating jobs, and boosting economic growth but at a cost of hundreds of millions of Euros to universities across Europe.

 Sustained growth and new jobs are, indeed, a key precondition for the wellbeing of all Europeans. There’s no argument there.  As Commission Vice-President Jyrki Katainen, responsible for Jobs, Growth, Investment and Competitiveness pointed out, “we need fresh investments in Europe and for this we need to mobilise extra private finance.[2]” The approach however, seems recklessly short-termist. Achieving investment, monetary fluidity and commercial momentum is a huge part of sustained attention to the education sector. Sustained investment of education is also a first-class method of in-house job creation in an ever-developing sector ultimately gives Europe a hard-won edge over other regions of the world, many of whom still focus on manufacturing rather than innovation and research. Achieving such benefits at the expanse of world-class research, teaching and learning, which itself is a genuine catalyst of EU innovation and competitiveness however makes little sense.

 So, congratulations to Britain. At a time when the UK is convulsing over its national future and international vocation, the danger to education funding, set against the backdrop of European recovery was the prime concern for the single largest UK delegation of university Vice Chancellors who at the end of April travelled without delay to Brussels to voice their concerns. Among them was Sir Ian Diamond, principal and vice-chancellor of the University of Aberdeen, who argued that “excellence in research is being challenged in every way by these cuts.” Sir Leszek Borysiewicz, Vice-chancellor of the University of Cambridge, stated that the cuts would hit pure research in UK universities, who would then be unable to borrow money to replace lost funds despite the existence of a loan scheme designed for this purpose. “There are programmes in Horizon2020 focused on pure research that cannot get this money back,” he said, adding that “€2.7 billion is a lot to give up from a programme we know works”[3]. Similarly, Kurt Deketelaere, Secretary-General of the League of European Research Universities, was involved in a similar lobbying effort in Brussels. “I’m not sure it’s going to end well,” he said. While lawmakers in the European Parliament are inserting text into the legal proposal to ensure a greater link between the fund and research and innovation spending, the window for finding a compromise on budget cuts is closing according to Deketelaere.[4] 

The British backlash is not, in this sense, an isolated one. A variety of other institutions lent their voices to the Commission’s proposal. A joint statement was released by Science Europe, the European Association of Research and Technology Organisations (EARTO), the European University Association (EUA), the League of European Research Universities (LERU) and the Conference of European Schools for Advanced Engineering Education and Research (CESAR), stating that while they supported the Commission’s actions to boost economic growth and job creation through R&I investment, Horizon2020 remained “the only strategic European-level instrument supporting R&I activities” and actors. As the joint statement made clear: “Horizon2020, much like national R&I funds, is based on granting funds recognising that R&I actors such as universities, research performing organisations (RPOs) and research and technology organisations (RTOs) have specific business models requiring strong public support (that cannot primarily come from loans).[5] 

What informs the Commission’s perspective on this latest funding fracas? According to Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker, “if Europe invests more, Europe will be more prosperous and create more jobs – it’s as simple as that.“[6] Thus, by re-allocating funds from Horizon2020 to the EFSI, Europe will “attract much more important sums that will then be reinvested in innovation,” thereby “delivering higher returns” utilising the same amount of money. Moreover, the Commission argues that “the overall amount of investment on innovation mobilised by the EU budget in the next years will be higher than with Horizon2020 only”. More importantly,  funding initially foreseen for Horizon2020 will allegedly not be lost, that is “not lost for innovation.”[7]  The arcane mysteries of bookkeeping aside, one can argue that ESFI-branded funding, according to the Juncker proposal will now be dispersed amongst different projects, which in real terms dilutes the funding designed to underwrite Horizon2020 projects.

ESFI and Horizon2020 simply do different things, and neither they, nor their funding structures can realistically reinforce each other. EFSI primarily aims at attracting private investors, while Horizon2020 funds mostly research undertaken by universities and research institutes and centres, many of which are publicly funded and work on a different “business model” than private companies. Even the briefest of glances at how universities do, or indeed ought to operate, makes this much clear. Therefore, regardless of the Commission’s enterprise-led discourse, projects undertaken by higher education institutions across Europe are likely to be negatively affected. Ironically, more astute research could have enlightened the commission on this point: a decent assessment regarding the impact of funds diverted from Horizon2020 would indicate which projects could potentially benefit from EFSI funding, and which (arguably the lion share) of projects must be ring-fenced within the original structures of Horizon2020.

Retrospective accounting is never popular. And infrequently effective.  The creation of new jobs may yield higher employment in the short-term, but it does not ensure that these new jobs will not be subsequently reduced or re-located elsewhere, or indeed that the commercial boost of the ESFI will not fall onto the presently fallow commercial ground of the Eurozone. Research is project-specific, dedicated, rarely fungible given its capital-intensive nature and largely conditioned exclusively to the institutional dynamic from which it first emerges, i.e. the presence of faculty-based facilities and higher-education expertise. Its purpose is not to underwrite a faltering Eurozone in raw funding from the bottom up but to boost the top-down ideas, projects, dynamics and outputs that are themselves the catalyst to enhanced productivity, jobs and competition.

What now? The usual standoff between ardent voices from a key sector attempting to persuade the Commission and key Member State governments to block the re-allocation of funds? Our hope lies, for now, in the European Parliament, where a considerable number of MEP currently oppose the idea of hollowing out Horizon2020 funding. We should remember that MEPs backed amendments safeguarding research funding for programmes like Horizon2020 being used for EFSI-supported projects. As MEP Van Brempt argued, “our researchers, our universities around the EU, need this money if we want to keep our future-oriented vision and to enhance the EU’s competitiveness and global strength.”[8] Last ditch hopes rest also with a motivated educational sector, and key voices being heard. Unfortunately, apart from the charge of last week, and some immediate media coverage, there has been virtually no public discussion or sustained media attention regarding the proposed changes.

Funding reallocations are hardly glamorous, admittedly. But a full-frontal assault on the funding structures underwriting innovation (much of it connected to sustaining Eurozone industry and commerce) is worthy of attention. Insights beget illumination, illumination sustains innovation. And innovation keeps things efficient and effective. Not tinkering with the most important hands-off budget in Europe. Universities have survived the storm necessitating corporate benchmarking and impact and knowledge exchange in bidding for funding; but hollowing out Horizon2020 and any related educational budgets risks substituting instrumental forms of performance for genuine progress.

 Sources

http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/meps-back-ringfencing-juncker-plan-money-single-vote-313766

http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/docs/efsi_qa_en.pdf

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/uk-v-cs-lobby-in-brussels-on-eu-research-cuts/2019698.article

http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/v-cs-go-to-brussels-to-lobby-against-cuts/2019654.article

http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/76989/Big-guns-of-UK-universities-lobby-against-research-cuts-in-Brussels

http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/commission-faces-juncker-plan-backlash-by-research-community/

http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/eit-and-erc-expected-to-lose-millions-in-juncker-investment-plan/

http://ec.europa.eu/unitedkingdom/press/frontpage/2014/14_124_en.htm

http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-32257724

[1] With profound thanks to CCCU Politics/IR Graduate Michal Gloznek. Having gradauted with distinction from Politics/IR here at CCCU in 2014, Michal is completing the first year of his MPhil in Latin American Studies at the Latin American Centre, School of Interdisciplinary Area Studies, St Antony’s College, Oxford.

[2] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

[3] http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/news/uk-v-cs-lobby-in-brussels-on-eu-research-cuts/2019698.article

[4] http://www.sciencebusiness.net/news/76989/Big-guns-of-UK-universities-lobby-against-research-cuts-in-Brussels

[5] http://horizon2020projects.com/policy-research/commission-faces-juncker-plan-backlash-by-research-community/

[6] http://europa.eu/rapid/press-release_IP-14-2128_en.htm

[7] http://ec.europa.eu/priorities/jobs-growth-investment/plan/docs/efsi_qa_en.pdf

 [8] http://www.euractiv.com/sections/energy/meps-back-ringfencing-juncker-plan-money-single-vote-313766

 

The post Horizon 2020: EU investment offensive or offensive investment? appeared first on Ideas on Europe.

Pakistan
White House denies journalist’s assertions on bin Laden raid

On Monday, the White House responded to a controversial report by journalist Seymour Hersh, dismissing it as “baseless” (CNN, RFE/RL). Hersh wrote in the London Review of Books on Sunday that the U.S. government secretly cooperated with Pakistani intelligence officials to kill bin Laden, and that top Pakistani Army intelligence officials knew about the raid. Ned Price, the White House National Security spokesman, said on Monday that “the notion that the operation that killed Osama Bin Ladin was anything but a unilateral U.S. mission is patently false.” He added: “As we said at the time, knowledge of this operation was confined to a very small circle of senior U.S. officials. The president decided early on not to inform any other government, including the Pakistani government, which was not notified until after the raid had occurred.” During the daily press briefing on Monday, White House spokesman Josh Earnest again dismissed the report, citing CNN National Security Analyst Peter Bergen’s comment that “what’s true in this story isn’t new, and what’s new in the story isn’t true” (CNN).

Pakistani PM, Officials Arrive in Kabul

Pakistani Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif arrived in Kabul today for key talks on increasing cooperation between the neighboring countries in fighting militant groups (AP, Pajhwok, VOA). Army Chief Gen. Raheel Sharif and the head of Pakistan’s intelligence agency, Gen. Gizwan Akhtar are also part of the visiting delegation. This is the first time Sharif is visiting Kabul after the installation of the National UnitY Government, and the delegation is holding separate meetings with both Ghani and Afghan Chief Executive Abdullah Abdullah.

Nepal

Another earthquake in Nepal, India prepares aid

A second major earthquake hit Nepal on Tuesday, with dozens of deaths reported and thousands more injured. The U.S. Geological Survey assigned the new earthquake a preliminary magnitude of 7.3, compared to 7.8 assigned to the April 25 earthquake. (New York Times). Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi met with top Indian officials to monitor the situation. Modi’s office tweeted that he has “directed all concerned authorities to be on alert for carrying out rescue and relief operations, as required” (NDTV). Per initial reports, at least two people were killed by the earthquake in the Indian state of Bihar, which borders Nepal (Times of India). Tremors from the earthquake were felt as far away as Delhi, where Metro services were briefly suspended (India Today).

Bangladesh

Atheist blogger killed in machete attack

Ananta Bijoy Das, a Bangladeshi atheist blogger, was murdered in the city of Sylhet in northeastern Bangladesh (The Guardian, CNN). Das was hacked to death by four masked attackers with machetes, according to the police. This is the third such murder in Bangladesh this year. Das wrote blogs for the Mukto-Muno website, which used to be moderated by Avijit Roy, who was himself stabbed to death in February in Dhaka, the capital. While Kamrul Hasan, the commissioner of Sylhet police, declined to offer a motive for the attack, the previous two attacks have been attributed to Islamic militants opposed to the victims’ secular views.

India

Chinese smartphone makers eye Indian market

The New York Times reported on Monday that Chinese smartphone manufacturing companies are increasingly shifting their focus towards India (New York Times). The Chinese smartphone market has become more and more saturated, with 800 million smartphone users in the country. Fewer new buyers, coupled with a slowing economy, has diminished growth prospects within China. Instead, Chinese smartphone makers are targeting the Indian market, which is sized at $14.5 billion and rapidly growing. Indians are expected to buy 111 million smartphones in 2015 and 149 million in 2016. Chinese companies like Xiaomi, OnePlus, and Gionee are planning to set up research and development facilities in India.

Modi set to be first Indian PM to visit Mongolia

Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi will visit East Asia this week, and his meeting with President Xi Jinping of China in Beijing will be a highly anticipated event. Following his visit to China, Modi will also visit Mongolia on May 17, the first such visit by an Indian Prime Minister (Times of India). Noted South Asia scholar C. Raja Mohan argues that there is a strategic element to Modi’s Mongolia trip, as India and China compete for influence within each other’s neighborhoods (Indian Express).

Afghanistan

Roadside bomb kills 5 civilians

A roadside bomb killed five civilians and wounded three others in Kandahar province on Tuesday (RFE/RL, TOLO). Samim Akhplwak, the spokesman for the provincial governor, said that two women and one child were wounded in the blast and that an investigation is underway to determine if it was an old mine or a bomb planted by the Taliban (AP). The Taliban have not yet claimed responsibility for the bomb, but Kandahar province is the staging ground for their insurgency.

Taliban, security forces battle in Herat

Skirmishes between Taliban militants and Afghan security forces in Herat province continued on Tuesday, as dozens of insurgents attacked a number of security checkpoints in the Shindand district (Pajhwok, TOLO). Abdul Rauf, a police spokesperson, said that 20 rebels were killed during the fighting, but other officials declined to give a count of casualties. On Saturday, Taliban insurgents attacked and gained control of Jawand district in western Badghis province. The recent uptick in fighting is attributed to the beginning of the Taliban’s spring offensive last month.

— Udit Banerjea and Emily Schneider

Edited by Peter Bergen

Un an après son arrivée au pouvoir, en mai 2014, le premier ministre indien Narendra Modi continue d'ériger en modèle économique les recettes expérimentées dans l'Etat du Gujarat, qu'il a dirigé de 2001 à 2014 . Si son étoile commence à pâlir, le dirigeant du parti hindouiste Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) a (...) / Inde, Agriculture, Économie, Industrie, Libéralisme, Mouvement de contestation, Parti politique, Travail, Répression, Privatisation - 2015/05

Ce saisissant roman prolétarien n'est pas une nouveauté , mais il est bon de saisir l'occasion d'une nouvelle publication pour revenir sur ce chef-d'œuvre d'un genre peu fréquenté, et parfois plus attachant par la thématique que par la grandeur littéraire. Avec Le Bateau-Usine, écrit en 1929, (...) / Asie, Japon, Russie, Communisme, Culture, Histoire, Idéologie, Littérature, Mer, Mouvement de contestation, Travail, Fiction, Pêche - 2015/05

Celui-là n'avait pas des verrières fragiles ! Un petit bijou de beau livre pas cher (14,90 EUR pour 180
Plus d'infos »

It was Wednesday, April 15th when the European Commission announced to have sent a statement of objections to Google for allegedly abusing its market position, cheating on consumers and competitors by distorting Web search results to favour its own shopping service. Moreover, the European Commission has also formally started another antitrust investigation, concerning the mobile operating system Android, “investigating on whether Google has breached the EU antitrust rules by hindering the development and market access of rival mobile operating systems, applications and services to the detriment of consumers and developers of innovative services and products”.

 “No competition without transparency”, can be reassumed as the essence of the Messerschmidt Report on EU Competition Policy, adopted by the European Parliament, Tuesday March 10th that led the EU’s investigation into Google to a turning point. Indeed when approved, the European Parliament expressed regret that after four years of investigation the Commission has not shown any demonstrable results in the case itself or the allegations of the preferential treatment of its own services in displaying results of search queries, stating that “in order to be credible in the digital agenda, the Google case urges to be solved”.

“I’m not pointing the finger against Google itself but against the fact that negotiations are lasting too long. It’s four years since the Commission has taken initiative after initiative but nothing’s relay going on. I’m not seeking to put Google in the dock, but we have seen several initiatives and four years passed and we have to resolve this case. The credibility of the Commission’s digital agenda is on the line, if it fails to ensure that competition infringements in fast-moving and dynamic digital markets are tackled swiftly” so Mr. Messerschmidt about his report.

 Margrethe Vestager EU Commissioner in charge of competition policy who took over this politically charged case in November, following nearly five years of investigation by former Competition Commissioner Joaquin Almunia, outlined the situation in the following way: “In the case of Google I am concerned that the company has given an unfair advantage to its own comparison shopping service in breach of EU antitrust rules.” Given the outlined situation, the Mountain View, California based company will have ten weeks of time in order to advocate their case, having “the opportunity to convince the Commission to the contrary. However, if the investigation confirms our concerns, Google would have to face the legal consequences and change the way it does business in Europe”.  

 Replying to the critics, accusing the EU of taking a protectionist stance against the US tech industry: “In all of our cases (concerning competition policy), the nationality of the enterprises involved is, and will remain, indifferent to us. Our mission is to make sure that every company operating within the EU, does it respecting our policies”. The fact that many of the firms that have complained to Brussels in order to challenge Google’s business practices in Europe are themselves US companies, should also be seen as an important signal.

On the newly opened Android investigation instead: “I have also launched a formal antirust investigation of Goggle’s conduct concerning mobile operating systems, apps and services. Smartphones, tablets and similar devices play an increasing role in many people’s daily lives and I want to make sure the markets in this area can flourish without anticompetitive constraints imposed by any company,” so Ms. Vestager.

 Sanctions:

Concerning issues of European Competition Policy, it’s the European Commission who has the major say with the power to apply sanctions up to 10% of the company’s annual sales. In this case, concerning the Google issue, if the American tech giant will be judged guilty, the European Commission will have the power to apply a fine up to 6.2 billion euros.

Moreover if the Commission finds that companies are abusing a dominant market position, the EU regulator can also demand wide-ranging changes in the way a Company does its business in Europe

 When asked if really ready to fine a tech giant such as Google, Ms. Vestager explained that “it is very important that every road is open- first when it comes to commitments but also when it comes to the other road, at the end of which is a fine.”

 Reactions:

In its first reaction, the American tech giant stated that it strongly disagreed with the EU’s statement of objections, emphasizing the fact that, on their opinion, during the last years its products have fostered competition, benefitting consumers as well. “While Google may be the most used search engine, people can now find and access information in numerous different ways—and allegations of harm, for consumers and competitors, have proved to be wide of the mark”.
“Our free operating system for mobile devices has been a key player in spurring competition and choice, lowering prices and increasing choice for everyone (there are over 18,000 different devices available today)” so the Mountain View, California based company concerning the Android issue.

 Ramon Tremosa i Balcells (ALDE), very active on this dossier since the beginning stressed the fact that during the last years many European S&M enterprises went bankrupt causing damage to European consumers. From a Single Digital Market perspective, the aim of Competition Policy should be to “establish an open market that contains and warrants the same opportunities for everyone”. “The Google issue is not a question of taxation, we need to assure a level playing field in the European market, assuring companies to equally compete in the market, and avoid Google to monopolize the market in the next years.”

 Morten Messerschmidt MEP, author of the European Parliament’s recent annual Competition report, said: “Finally we are seeing some life in the Commission’s Competition directorate. Despite four years of investigations we have seen few clear results or actions by the Commission to allow all digital businesses to operate on a level playing field. The Commission has now showed its teeth, and it must now work swiftly with Google to resolve this case and create an open and fair Internet search marketplace.”

 Monique Goyens, general manager of BEUC, an associate member of the International Consumers Organisation aiming at representing and defending the interests of all Europe’s consumers at the European level, stressed the importance of Google treating all the online services, including their own and not just Google Shopping, following the same standards and practices, without discrimination to put it simple.

 “Even Uncle Google must play fair”, German lawmaker Manfred Weber, floor leader of the largest conservative group, said: « Internet is not the Wild West – there are rules on the web that must also be respected. »

 

Patrick Zingerle

To know more:

      -. EU-LOGOS, “COMPETITION POLICY: ‘IN ORDER TO BE CREDIBLE IN THE DIGITAL AGENDA, THE GOOGLE CASE NEEDS TO BE SOLVED’.”http://europe-liberte-securite-justice.org/2015/03/17/competition-policy-in-order-to-be-credible-in-the-digital-agenda-the-google-case-needs-to-be-solved/

      -. Dossier GOOGLE des articles de Nea Say http://www.eu-logos.org/eu-logos_nea-say.php?idr=4&idnl=3500&nea=156&lang=fra&arch=0&term=0

 

 

 

Classé dans:DROITS FONDAMENTAUX, Protection des données personnelles

La Rochelle n'a pas oublié son matelot du 1er BFMC. Plus de 70 ans après sa mort, sa ville d'origine
Plus d'infos »

Défiant tous les sondages, David Cameron a été réélu en obtenant la majorité absolue à la Chambre des communes, avec 331 sièges. Comment comprendre cette victoire ?
C’est en effet un scénario que personne n’attendait. David Cameron semble avoir gagné cette élection essentiellement sur le terrain de l’économie, qu’il a réussi à faire repartir et qui a finalement pesé plus lourd que l’effet de l’austérité sur le pays. Au-delà de la personnalité de David Cameron elle-même, qui ne suscite pas toujours une adhésion débordante, les Britanniques ont vu un dirigeant fort, crédible économiquement, et qui n’a pas hésité à prendre les décisions qui s’imposaient. Cependant, l’analyse des résultats de cette élection ne fait que commencer, notamment pour les travaillistes qui vont devoir engager une vraie réflexion, eux qui n’ont pas gagné d’élections sans Tony Blair depuis 1974. Peuvent-ils gagner une élection sans mordre sur le centre, dans un pays modéré, qui penche au centre droit ? Des interrogations se posent aussi pour les instituts de sondages, qui ont du mal à lire le vote conservateur. Ce cas de figure s’est déjà produit plusieurs fois par le passé, notamment en 1992 où l’écart entre les estimations et le vote conservateur avait été de presque 10%. Jusqu’à la veille de l’élection, un gouvernement de coalition mené par les travaillistes semblait encore le scenario le plus probable.

David Cameron, pendant sa campagne, a promis à ses électeurs la tenue d’un référendum sur le maintien ou non du Royaume Uni au sein de l’Union européenne (UE). Il souhaite négocier avec Bruxelles une réforme du fonctionnement de l’Union. Quelle est-elle ? Selon vous, y a-t-il un risque sérieux de voir le Royaume-Uni quitter l’UE ?
La sortie du Royaume-Uni au sein de l’Union européenne aurait paru entièrement inconcevable il y a de cela quatre ans, rappelons-le tout de même. Le 23 janvier 2013, David Cameron a promis un referendum sur le maintien ou non du Royaume-Uni au sein de l’Union européenne, décision qu’il a prise essentiellement pour des raisons de politique intérieure. Elle était destinée à tenter d’endiguer la montée du UKIP, qui se nourrit essentiellement de l’euroscepticisme et de l’aile droite de son parti. Le résultat de ces élections peut justifier cette décision « tactique », puisqu’en dépit d’avoir dicté un certain nombre des thèmes de la campagne, le UKIP se retrouve marginalisé et n’a remporté qu’un seul siège à la Chambre des Communes. Cameron a retrouvé une marge de manœuvre et pourra user de la légitimité que lui donnent ces résultats. Reste que sa majorité demeure très limitée, à l’instar de celle de John Major en 1992, qui lui avait éprouvé de grandes difficultés à sortir de l’ornière de l’euroscepticisme de son parti. Les libéraux démocrates, qui se sont effondrés, n’auront plus l’influence positive qu’ils avaient dans la coalition depuis 2010 sur les relations du Royaume-Uni avec l’UE, et Cameron éprouvera paradoxalement plus de difficultés dans ses relations avec l’aile droite de son parti.
De ce point de vue, il doit naviguer un paradoxe dans les négociations à venir : il devra donner suffisamment de gages de bonne volonté tant à l’aile droite de son parti qu’à ses partenaires européens. C’est un exercice des plus délicats. S’il veut arriver à quelque chose en Europe, il devra faire preuve de plus de doigté que ce dont il a fait preuve jusqu’à présent : être constructif, ne pas braquer, écouter et dialoguer sans trop en demander dès l’abord. Mais cela sera-t-il suffisant pour l’aile droite de son parti ? On serait tenté d’utiliser la formule récente de Yanis Varoufakis : “Red lines are inflexible but our red lines and their lines are such that there is common ground”…
Il n’obtiendra pas de concessions majeures, comme la restriction de la liberté de mouvement ou une modification significative des traités. Il n’y a aucun appétit pour ce faire en Europe, des élections se tenant en France et en Allemagne en 2017, sans parler du budget européen fixé jusqu’en 2019. Il pourra par contre obtenir des réformes plus limitées, sur les prestations sociales des nouveaux arrivants, par exemple, ou des garanties sur le marché unique. Jean-Claude Juncker s’est dit prêt à travailler avec le Royaume-Uni. Bien menées par les deux parties, ces négociations pourraient même se révéler pour l’Europe une chance et une occasion de réfléchir à son fonctionnement qu’elle doit rendre plus cohérent et moins bureaucratique.

Le Parti national écossais (SNP, indépendantiste) est le véritable outsider de ces élections obtenant un total de 56 sièges sur 59, alors qu’il n’en possédait que 6. Comment interpréter ce succès fulgurant du SNP ? Quelles conséquences peut avoir cette large victoire pour l’Écosse et son souhait d’indépendance ?
En effet, et Cameron se trouve face à un dilemme. Le SNP a tiré profit de sa campagne lors du référendum écossais de l’année passée, qui a enclenché une véritable lame de fond, que le parti a su organiser autour d’un débat de fond et d’un vrai projet de société. L’une des caractéristiques fortes de ce projet est un engagement plus profond et plus positif avec l’Union européenne. L’Ecosse est beaucoup plus progressiste et pro-européenne que le reste du Royaume-Uni. Si le Royaume-Uni sort de l’Union européenne, quid de l’Ecosse ? L’on pourrait se retrouver dans une situation où si Cameron veut défendre l’unité du Royaume-Uni, comme il professe de le faire, il devra faire campagne pour le maintien du Royaume-Uni dans l’Union. Mais le pourra-t-il ? S’il ne le peut pas, il est un scénario qui le verrait rester dans l’histoire comme le Premier ministre qui a démembré le Royaume, quitté l’Union et isolé l’Angleterre.