Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2001-02-28-Speech-3-128"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20010228.7.3-128"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, Commissioner, ladies and gentlemen, the Greens agree with these three reports in principle. One may well ask why this should be, given that these directives basically deal with the privatisation of the telecommunications market. The public-sector undertakings have already been partly or completely privatised throughout the EU. So the point is not if they should be privatised, it is merely how.
The European Greens have a clear attitude towards liberalisation. We believe that the state has not always acted in the citizens' best interests, but we fear that privatisation will dismantle public services and we intend to fight a digital divide in society. A great deal has been said about technological neutrality. Technological neutrality may well exist at a purely legislative level. But at a social level, technology is never neutral. We want developments for the people, which are good for the people, which benefit everyone and hurt few, which is why we are in favour of maximum controls on monopolies in the telecommunications sector. Maybe this cannot prevent our still having three telecommunications giants in the whole of the EU in ten years' time. But it can prevent it if the national regulatory authorities are strengthened and the Commission also takes on an arbitration function, because then – and only then – is monopoly control even thinkable.
We are also in favour of new companies' being able to offer services which compete with former public undertakings on fair terms. This at least will give more people a chance of being able to afford Internet access even though – let me stress once again – we believe in neither the hand of fate nor market logic.
So where does this take us? The aim is to regulate a sector of the economy which should bring people greater independence and more self-determination. We want to help ensure that everyone who wants access to these technologies can take advantage of this opportunity. And we want people to be able to use digital communications to communicate and organise themselves, in brief to develop this, throughout the world. And that means fair access. Not just in private households, but also in public places, in libraries, schools and all public places.
This communication must be free. It must be available to everyone indiscriminately and, if at all possible, it must be available to everyone on the same terms, which is why we say no to the numerous attempts to restrict, censor or criminalise the Internet. Even if this is not specified in the directives before us, censorship and the supervisory authorities' quest for more and more control over people appears increasingly to be the essence of any attempt to shape the digital sector, which is why it must be said here that we Greens are in favour of open access for everyone. We want open digital communications. We do not want more supervision, we want no supervision. That is the only reason we went along with the arrangements for privatisation, given that we do not in fact want privatisation."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples