Talk:Telecoms Package

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Who put that deletion notice up? RIAA?

This article sure isn't useless. I say we remove that sign! Vectoor (talk) 18:13, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I second removing the sign. Unless there is a duplicate page about the Telecoms package, this is incredibly relevant. Putting up a sign saying it should be expanded or revised would be appropriate however. MMN-o 09:18, 4 April 2009 (CET)

I would also like to remove the removal-sign, but since I started it, I don't have a say :-) //Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ehj (talkcontribs) 22:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

It is an informative article with several references, up for deletion because it is "meaningless", if so then what is the point of any information? 2009-04-06 11:17. slacr

This article should not be deleted, as it seems to be a unique starting point for concise information on the second reading of the telecoms package. However, what is urgently needed is facts on the alledgedly intended changes (amendments) that are discussed all over the web as a thread to the european internet in general! (talk) 16:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I just want to say the Telecoms Package is really important. It's a directive-package, it updates the old rules, it's in process, it's controversial, it cuts into net-neutrality, civil liberties, 3-strikes, you name it, it coul be all nightmares put in your subscription contract. //Erik —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


I don't know whether or not this is just me, but I'm confused by this article. Amendment 46 was carried, so that means ISPs are able to potentially sell "packages" of websites? Or is the inverse true - they CAN'T do this because of Amendment 46? -- (talk) 19:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

That Amenedment 46 came through means that its text will be included, which means more freedom for european internet users. However, the wording of Am. 46 contains nothing about 'TV-like packages', which seems to be a widespread meme by now, seemingly thought up to make the topic more comprehensible, but obviouly failing to do so. Also note that the sources to the section about Am. 46 had to be researched from scratch, because all the organisations which were conerned about it failed to deliver any first-hand information on the topic. (talk) 13:32, 23 April 2009 (UTC)


Yeahhh, where in the text of the law does it specifically enable that kind of thing? That "blackoutEU" website is extremely vague and has kinda bad grammar. --Ddoomdoom (talk) 17:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

This article contains a lot of errors. This for instance is not true "The proposition also makes it possible for Internet service providers (ISP) to decide which web pages users are allowed to visit". There is absolutely nothing that stops ISP:s from doing that today. For instance, Deutche Telecom is preventing their end users from using Skype AFAIK. The new telecoms package only helps Net Neutrality, for instance it requires ISP:s to clearly state to their users if they do block anything.Globaljuggler (talk) 19:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
"and has kinda bad grammar." Why discredit the site for having bad grammar while using bad grammar yourself? How ridiculous. (I am not trying to say that that section is not dubious — it is.) portugal (talk) 22:54, 25 September 2010 (UTC)
May I humbly refer you to greenrd's law.--greenrd (talk) 21:37, 26 September 2010 (UTC)


This page requires a thorough update. The legistlative procedure has already lead to the adoption of Directive 2009/140/Ec Of The European Parliament And Of The Council, which substance is significantly different from what this article shows. The general focus of this page is heavily biased towards the features that would allow measures in terms of disconnecting users from the internet that violate copyrights, while other important changes remain undiscussed or do not receive sufficient attention. For example, there is little focus on changes regarding net neutrality, and the considerations put forward there are too concise to be correct. Proposing a rewrite.Shadowfix (talk) 07:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

A rewrite is a good idea. I am busy with other projects at the moment, but I have an eye on this page (I did the research on amendment 46). --Morton Shumway (talk) 11:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
Whoever does it, please keep an eye open for outside linkages which might be affected, eg, one I've just come across at HADOPI law#Head of state. Cheers, Bjenks (talk) 09:03, 5 March 2011 (UTC)