<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=iso-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#333333">
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:p06240814c961a7a56b3d@%5B192.168.1.160%5D"
type="cite">
<blockquote type="cite">Can you tell be how it is difficult to
enforce the principle or regulatory law that 'there will be no content
provider specific pay-for-priority on the public Internet'.
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<br>
To make your statement possible I think you'll need regulation in
place, so you need to re-write a lot of telecommunications law. Not
easy.
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
Why not... Was it easier to get in telecom privatisation through the
WTO to almost every country in the world, which no doubt did a lot of
good. It simply depends on how badly you want something - and who wants
it and who doesnt. <br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:p06240814c961a7a56b3d@%5B192.168.1.160%5D"
type="cite">Look at the U.S. FCC's tried to bring a 'lite' set of NN
rules in its recent Internet order, and Verizon has already challenged
the Internet order in the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals. And Verizon
may well win, particularly if it can keep the appeal in the DC Circuit
Court (same court that ruled on Comcast against the FCC, Verizon might
even get the same judges.)
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
That is just bec US gov and regulators are dithering... (for the
reasons see my last email) . If they want it they can have clear
enforceable laws and rules in 6 months. But hoping that the top
industry players will provide you with draft laws is like getting your
health policy written by drug companies. <br>
<blockquote cite="mid:p06240814c961a7a56b3d@%5B192.168.1.160%5D"
type="cite">"it is very hard to make broad, sweeping concepts
actionable or enforceable as rules".
<br>
<br>
I don't think there's anything wrong with broad, sweeping concepts as
principles, so long as we know they are only principles. But how can
you make them actionable/enforceable on global basis? Or on a national
basis for that matter?
<br>
<br>
There's been an enormous amount written over the past year or so about
the FCC's attempts to implement some network neutrality rules.
<br>
<br>
Don't get me wrong, I am not saying network neutrality is not
important, I'm a great believer. But you should start saying how
you'll implement what your proposing rather than asking questions of
others.
<br>
</blockquote>
Simply by notofying the law and enforcing it.... Afterall it is not the
first time new laws will be written and notified. THis has been done in
telecom and IT areas before. Almost all aspects of our social life is
subject to so many enforceable laws. So the simple fact in case of NN
is, to many vested interests with just too much of vested interest (in
a Internet which serves corporate interests) around, and little or
ineffective public interest action (and here IGC figures).<br>
<br>
How would an argument on - dont get me wrong I am all for human rights
but they are difficult to enforce etc look in an IGC kind of a place,
Dilly dallying on NN, and not doing enough on proposing global/
national frameworks and action are similarly bad for us.<br>
<br>
parminder <br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote cite="mid:p06240814c961a7a56b3d@%5B192.168.1.160%5D"
type="cite"><br>
Adam
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I am very sure it can be enforced with 100
percent clarity and effectiveness... This is also written in the FCC's
new NN framework and from all that I know they mean to enforce it. So
how you are claiming that this rule may not practically enforcable or
to be closer to your language 'problems will come when we try to
enforce this rule'. For me this is the basic NN rule and it is very
clear and 100 percent enforceable.
<br>
<br>
Many may have claimed at first that regulations that broke up first
telephone network monopolies and then broke the hardware-software
coupling will be difficult to enforce. However if these regulations
were not framed and enforced we may not have seen the information or
ICT revolution.
<br>
<br>
The main difference between those times and now is that the ICT
structure today is inherently global - and the most powerful countries
while they can clearly see the public interest benefit of NN for their
own people, they know that with an inequitous and non neutral Internet,
it will be their mega digital corporate which will win against
newcomers from the developing world. So they are caught between
supporting an evident public interest cause and not weakening the
special global advantage their companies enjoy today. This is the key
'policy conundrum' in the globalised world today.
<br>
<br>
Parminder
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">I think that's what we were trying to say
with this comment in the conclusion "it is very hard to make broad,
sweeping concepts actionable or enforceable as rules". And as another
matter I think wireless networks are different from wired, and that's a
massive problem given that developing countries will likely be relying
on wireless.
<br>
<br>
Adam
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Thanks Adam for the paper. Just skimmed
through it, but plan to read it fully later.
<br>
<br>
However, I am unable to agree to the conclusions that it is difficult
to say what is a NN violation or not, and a one-size-fit-all set of
guidelines are difficult, and in any case any ex ante NN regulation is
extremely diffcult.
<br>
<br>
Can you suggest why for instance Norway's clear NN guidelines cannot
work, and work universally?
<br>
(see
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf"><http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf"><http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf"><http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf">http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf</a>
)
<br>
<br>
It all really depends on what our basic point of departure is. If it is
human rights, or rights of all people on the Internet, then that
becomes basic and most important and profit-models etc come much later.
NN has to be seen from such a huan rights angle. Anyone can argue to
any length how ensuring say democratic rights is an expensive model, or
media rights interfere with business models and the such. Precisely to
avoid such problem we have the concept of rights.
<br>
<br>
So, for many of us net neutrality, or net equality, is a basic right.
We start from here. Companies have to adjust their business models to
it, and regulators have to ensure that this right is ensured.
<br>
<br>
Now for practical translation of this right. I dont see how it is
difficult to understand or enforce a simple regulation that 'there will
be no content provider specific pay-for-priority on the public
Internet' and if any such practices are found there will be heavy
penalty and eventual cancellation of license. This however does exclude
public interest communication like emergency services etc about which
guidelines will be issued separately.
<br>
<br>
The above is a very specific and clear NN guideline. I will like to
hear why is it not enforceable.
<br>
<br>
Lee, managed services of the kind Akamai offers is a different thing.
Here they do not use the public internet but private IP based channels.
More elaborate NN guidelines will also cover issues about how public
Internet and such private IP based networks will co-exist in a manner
that larger pulbic interest and people's basic rights are ensured.
<br>
<br>
Not only Norway has clear NN guidelines, even FCC has come up with a NN
framework for wired internet and the framework covers all issues. In
fact the guidelines and the individual commissioner's comments make
very interesting reading. I have no confusion about NN when I read
them. Things are crystal clear, as they must be because they are real
enforcable laws of the land. The only problem is that FCC left out
wireless networks from NN ambit and that is the key issue we need to
discuss.
<br>
<br>
In this context it may be considered rather surprising that the main
civil society group in IG arena continues to think that NN issue is
too complex to be able to be discussed or applied with any degree of
coherence. I am not a techie, but I can clearly understand it - to the
extent that any 'real life' issue can ever be understood'.
<br>
<br>
On the notion that competitive markets will take care of the NN problem
- let me repeat, India's mobile market is perhaps the world's most
competitive, and there is a large scale NN violation going on there
right now.
<br>
<br>
parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
Adam Peake wrote:
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Some background
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093"><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093"><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093"><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093"><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093></a>
(self serving plug to a paper written by some colleagues and me, "A
Comparison of Network Neutrality Approaches In: The U.S., Japan, and
the European Union".)
<br>
<br>
Adam
<br>
<br>
<blockquote type="cite">Read below an article that got
published on NN in the UK today.
<br>
<br>
I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to *not* do
something about this issue. So many times a discussion on NN on this
list has run into this wall - it is a very complex issues with many
sides to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a good enough reason for
abdication. One often hears excuses like, with voice and video
domination the internet today NN is a meaningless concept. Not so at
all. We can have specific provisions whereby specific applications can
have different treatments while being content-provider neutral, this
latter being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have oftne been
mentioned in discussions here earlier. These guidelines allow space to
manage voice and vedio applications related issues. IS there any reason
why Norway's guidelines cannot be used globally, and why should IGC be
forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon enough there is not a
basic global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway like countries may
not be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness of the Internet and
its basic architectural principles.
<br>
<br>
What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a
plenary topic and absolutely put our foot down that it must be accepted
as a plenary topic, or else we find the whole exercise meaningless and
may not even want to participate.... I mean the kind of warnings we
issue about Ms-ism. Parminder
<br>
<br>
<br>
The end of the net as we know it
<br>
<br>
Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34
<br>
<br>
ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them first.
Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality
<br>
<br>
You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and press
Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that tedious,
plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop©s speakers,
you©re left staring at the whirring, circular icon as the video
buffers and buffers and buffers...
<br>
<br>
That©s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre broadband
connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just
moments ago. There©s nothing wrong with your connection; it must be
iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if anyone else is having
problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on your
screen leaves you looking more startled than Bill Bailey. ©¯This
service isn©t supported on your broadband service. Click here to visit
our social-networking partner, Facebook.©‹
<br>
<br>
Net neutrality? We don©t have it today
<br>
<br>
The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat.
Britain©s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier
internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are
thrust into the ©¯fast lane©‹, while those that don©t are left
fighting for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. They©re not
so much ripping up the cherished notion of net neutrality as pouring
petrol over the pieces and lighting the match. The only question is:
can they get away with it?
<br>
<br>
*No such thing as net neutrality*
<br>
<br>
It©s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality °© ISPs
treating different types of internet traffic or content equally °© is
already a busted flush. ©¯Net neutrality? We don©t have it today,©‹
argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation at
TalkTalk, Britain©s second biggest ISP.
<br>
<br>
©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all levels,
with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic types. [Some
consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some buy a lot of
capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped.
<br>
©¯So the suggestion that °© Œoh dear, it is terrible, we might move to
a two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let©s get real, we have
a very multifaceted and multitiered internet today,©‹ Heaney said.
<br>
<br>
Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be ©¯unthinkable©‹ to return to
an internet where every packet of data was given equal weight. ©¯Yes,
the internet of 30 years ago was one in which all data, all the bits
and the packets were treated in the same way as they passed through the
network,©‹ said Simon Milner, BT©s director of group industry policy.
©¯That was an internet that wasn©t about the internet that we have
today: it wasn©t about speech, it wasn©t about video, and it
certainly wasn©t about television.
<br>
<br>
©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that applications
would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some tools
were needed to make this network work more effectively, and that©s why
traffic management techniques and guaranteed quality of service were
developed in the 1990s, and then deep-packet inspection came along
roughly ten years ago,©‹ he added. ©¯These techniques and equipment are
essential for the development of the internet we see today.©‹
<br>
<br>
It©s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more expensive)
ISPs such as Zen Internet don©t employ any traffic shaping across
their network, and Zen has won the /PC Pro/ Best Broadband ISP award
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/></a>
for the past seven years.
<br>
<br>
Even today©s traffic management methods can cause huge problems for
certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a common
victim of ISPs© traffic management policies, often being deprioritised
to a snail©s pace during peak hours. While the intended target may be
the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients to download illicit copies
of the latest movie releases, legitimate applications can also fall
victim to such blunderbuss filtering.
<br>
<br>
©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,©‹ said Jean-Jacques
Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP service
Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely peer-to-peer file-sharing applications
that were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all the way to things
such as the BBC iPlayer [which used to run on P2P software] or Skype.
So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic from a technical
perspective, knowing that Skype actually doesn©t eat up much bandwidth
at all, why should it be deprioritised because it©s peer-to-peer?©‹
<br>
<br>
Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt
<br>
more vividly than on the mobile internet
<br>
<br>
Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more
vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services blocked at
the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda
propaganda tape, and varying charges for different types of data are
already commonplace.
<br>
<br>
Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful of
losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching the BBC
iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks outlaw tethering
a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard ©¯unlimited data©‹
contracts.
<br>
<br>
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has this
chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the mobile
market, think if that is how you want your internet and your devices to
work in the future, because that©s where things are leading.©‹
<br>
<br>
*Video blockers*
<br>
<br>
Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic
blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there©s one
area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what©s left of the cherished
concept of net neutrality, it©s video.
<br>
<br>
Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the largest
single category of internet traffic, according to Cisco©s Visual
Networking Index. It©s the chief reason why the amount of data used by
the average internet connection has shot up by 31% over the past year,
to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month.
<br>
<br>
Internet TV
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070></a>
<br>
<br>
Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for ISPs and
broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter traffic
management policies to make sure networks don©t collapse under the
weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters
such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks (CDNs) such
as Akamai millions of pounds every year to distribute their video
across the network and closer to the consumer; this helps avoid
bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands of people attempt to
stream The Apprentice at the same time.
<br>
<br>
Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video broadcasters
to pay them °© instead of the CDNs °© for guaranteed bandwidth. So if,
for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that TalkTalk customers can
watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing
to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at a major broadcaster
told /PC Pro/ that his company has already been approached by two
leading ISPs looking to cut such a deal.
<br>
<br>
Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the ©¯fast lane©‹; those
who don©t will be left to fight their way through the regular internet
traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a video, perhaps even one
you©ve paid for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of your
connection or the amount of network congestion, but whether the
broadcaster has paid your ISP for a prioritised stream.
<br>
<br>
©¯We absolutely could see situations in which some content or
application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service
above best efforts,©‹ admitted BT©s Simon Milner at a recent
Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the kind of thing that we©d have to
explain in our traffic management policies, and indeed we©d do so, and
then if somebody decided, Œwell, actually I don©t want to have that
kind of service©, they would be free to go elsewhere.©‹
<br>
<br>
We absolutely could see situations in which some content or
<br>
application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service
<br>
above best efforts
<br>
<br>
It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk would
be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour of
YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough cheque,
TalkTalk©s Andrew Heaney replied: ©¯We©d do a deal, and we©d look at
YouTube and we©d look at BBC and we should have freedom to sign
whatever deal works.©‹
<br>
<br>
That©s the country©s two biggest ISPs °© with more than eight million
broadband households between them °© openly admitting they©d either
cut off or effectively cripple video streams from an internet
<br>
broadcaster if it wasn©t willing to hand over a wedge of cash.
<br>
<br>
Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The
founding principle of the internet is that everyone °© from individuals
to global companies °© has equal access,©‹ wrote the BBC©s director of
future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net
neutrality. ©¯Since the beginning, the internet has been Œneutral©,
and everyone has been treated the same. But the emergence of fast and
slow lanes allow broadband providers to effectively pick and choose
what you see first and fastest.©‹
<br>
<br>
ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out certain
sites or services. ©¯We strongly believe that traffic throttling
shouldn©t be conducted on the basis of content provider; throttling
access to content from a particular company or institution,©‹ the
broadcaster said in a recent submission to regulator Ofcom©s
consultation on net neutrality.
<br>
<br>
Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a broadcaster and one of the
country©s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit
from shutting out rival broadcasters °© raised no such objection in its
submission to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and should be relied upon to
provide the necessary consumer safeguards,©‹ Sky argued.
<br>
<br>
Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially run from a small office
above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion
takeover °© have got off the ground if its three founders had been
forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos could be
watched smoothly? It seems unlikely.
<br>
<br>
*Walled-garden web*
<br>
<br>
It isn©t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially be
blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself barred if
one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an ISP, returning
the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of the late 1990s.
<br>
<br>
Stop sign
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073></a>
<br>
<br>
This isn©t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely popular
sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by the Government.
©¯I sign up to the two-year contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months
my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door and says Œfather, I
can©t access Facebook any more©,©‹ hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head
of international ICT policy at the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills. ©¯I say ŒWhy?©. She says ŒIt©s quite obvious, I have gone
to the site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever,
don©t take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©t pay them the money,
but YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube©: Minister, is that
acceptable? That is the sort of question we face.©‹
<br>
<br>
*Where©s the regulator?*
<br>
<br>
So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say ©¯yes©‹, think
about the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and
leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? It ran a
consultation on net neutrality earlier this year, with spiky
contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be
coming down on the side of the broadband providers.
<br>
<br>
©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net
neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of
allowing a two-sided market to emerge,©‹ said Alex Blowers,
international director at Ofcom.
<br>
<br>
©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to us that
the consumer expectation will be a service that©s of a reasonably
consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit down at the
beginning of a film and watch it to the end without constant problems
of jitter or the picture hanging,©‹ he said. Taking that argument to
its logical conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse to pay the
ISPs© bounty will be subject to stuttering quality.
<br>
<br>
Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. ©¯We are concerned
that Ofcom isn©t currently taking a firm stance in relation to
throttling,©‹ ITV said in its submission to the regulator. The BBC also
said it has ©¯concerns about the increasing potential incentives for
discriminatory behaviour by network operators, which risks undermining
the internet©s character, and ultimately resulting in consumer harm©‹.
<br>
<br>
Ofcom©s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as ©¯there is
very little evidence©‹ that ©¯the big beasts of the content application
and services world are coming together and doing deals with big beasts
of the network and ISP world©‹.
<br>
<br>
The regulator also places great faith in the power of competition: the
theory that broadband subscribers would simply jump ship to another ISP
if their provider started doing beastly things °© for example, cutting
off services such as the iPlayer. It©s a theory echoed by the ISPs
themselves. ©¯If we started blocking access to certain news sites, you
could be sure within about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and
we©d be chastised for it, quite rightly too,©‹ said TalkTalk©s
Heaney.
<br>
<br>
First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute
<br>
the content, services and applications they want
<br>
<br>
Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where broadband subscriptions
are routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, telephone or mobile
services °© hopping from one ISP to another is rarely simple. Not to
mention the 18-month or two-year contracts broadband customers are
frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in its submission to the
regulator, ©¯Ofcom©s 2009 research showed that a quarter of households
found it difficult to switch broadband and bundled services©‹, with the
©¯perceived hassle of the switching process©‹ and ©¯the threat of
additional charges©‹ dissuading potential switchers.
<br>
<br>
©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that©s that,©‹
argued the Open Rights Group©s Jim Killock. ©¯So you make your choice
and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the internet is you make
your choice, you don©t like it, you change your mind.©‹
<br>
<br>
The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open internet
may lie with the EU (although even its determination is wavering). The
EU©s 2009 framework requires national regulators such as Ofcom to
promote ©¯the ability of end users to access and distribute information
or run applications and services of their choice©‹ and that ISPs are
transparent about any traffic management.
<br>
<br>
It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners in the
©¯fast lane©‹ and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to set
©¯minimum quality of service requirements©‹ °© forcing ISPs to reserve
a set amount of bandwidth so that their traffic management doesn©t
hobble those sites that can©t afford to pay.
<br>
<br>
It©s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, but not
by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn©t have to use this new power handed
down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. ©¯There doesn©t yet
seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a public intervention that
would effectively create a new industry structure around this idea of a
guaranteed Œbest efforts© internet underpinned by legislation,©‹ said
Ofcom©s Blowers.
<br>
<br>
It©s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©s
approach creates large risks for the open internet,©‹ said Killock.
©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are weak, by relying on
transparency and competition alone, and it©s unfortunate it hasn©t
addressed the idea of a minimum service guarantee.©‹
<br>
<br>
At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn©t be permitted to block
legal websites or services that conflict with their commercial
interests. ©¯First and foremost, users should be able to access and
distribute the content, services and applications they want,©‹ said
European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier this year.
<br>
©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors °© for instance, those
providing voice-over the internet services °© shouldn©t be allowed.©‹
<br>
<br>
Yet, Ofcom doesn©t even regard this as a major issue. ©¯When VoIP
services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] network operators
were against permitting VoIP,©‹ Blowers said. ©¯We now know that you
can find packages from a number of suppliers that do permit VoIP
services.
<br>
So I©m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of gaming
behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.©‹
<br>
<br>
If the EU doesn©t drag the UK©s relaxed regulator into line with the
rest of the world, it will be British internet users who have the real
problem.
<br>
<br>
*Author:* Barry Collins
<br>
<br>
<br>
Read more: The end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features | PC
Pro
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y</a>
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
PK
<br>
<br>
<br>
Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today.
<br>
<br>
I do not think we, as a premier global CS group, can afford to *not* do
something about this issue. So many times a discussion on NN on this
list has run into this wall - it is a very complex issues with many
sides to it'. So ??? I dont think this is a good enough reason for
abdication. One often hears excuses like, with voice and video
domination the internet today NN is a meaningless concept. Not so at
all. We can have specific provisions whereby specific applications can
have different treatments while being content-provider neutral, this
latter being the key issue. Norway's NN guidelines have oftne been
mentioned in discussions here earlier. These guidelines allow space to
manage voice and vedio applications related issues. IS there any reason
why Norway's guidelines cannot be used globally, and why should IGC be
forcefully pushing for them. I fear that if soon enough there is not a
basic global consensus on NN guidelines even Norway like countries may
not be able to preserve NN, such is the globalness of the Internet and
its basic architectural principles.
<br>
<br>
What I am arguing for is that we should not only propose NN as a
plenary topic and absolutely put our foot down that it must be accepted
as a plenary topic, or else we find the whole exercise meaningless and
may not even want to participate.... I mean the kind of warnings we
issue about Ms-ism. Parminder
<br>
<br>
The end of the net as we know it
<br>
<br>
Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34
<br>
<br>
ISPs are threatening to cripple websites that don't pay them first.
Barry Collins fears a disastrous end to net neutrality
<br>
<br>
You flip open your laptop, click on the BBC iPlayer bookmark and press
Play on the latest episode of QI. But instead of that tedious,
plinky-plonky theme tune droning out of your laptop©s speakers,
you©re left staring at the whirring, circular icon as the video
buffers and buffers and buffers...
<br>
<br>
That©s odd. Not only have you got a new 40Mbits/sec fibre broadband
connection, but you were watching a Full HD video on Sky Player just
moments ago. There©s nothing wrong with your connection; it must be
iPlayer. So you head to Twitter to find out if anyone else is having
problems streaming Stephen Fry et al. The message that appears on your
screen leaves you looking more startled than Bill Bailey. ©¯This
service isn©t supported on your broadband service. Click here to visit
our social-networking partner, Facebook.©‹
<br>
<br>
Net neutrality? We don©t have it today
<br>
<br>
The free, unrestricted internet as we know it is under threat.
Britain©s leading ISPs are attempting to construct a two-tier
internet, where websites and services that are willing to pay are
thrust into the ©¯fast lane©‹, while those that don©t are left
fighting for scraps of bandwidth or even blocked outright. They©re not
so much ripping up the cherished notion of net neutrality as pouring
petrol over the pieces and lighting the match. The only question is:
can they get away with it?
<br>
<br>
No such thing as net neutrality
<br>
<br>
It©s worth pointing out that the concept of net neutrality °© ISPs
treating different types of internet traffic or content equally °© is
already a busted flush. ©¯Net neutrality? We don©t have it today,©‹
argues Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation at
TalkTalk, Britain©s second biggest ISP.
<br>
<br>
©¯We have an unbelievably good, differentiated network at all levels,
with huge levels of widespread discrimination of traffic types. [Some
consumers] buy high speed, some buy low speed; some buy a lot of
capacity, some buy less; some buy unshaped traffic, some buy shaped.
<br>
©¯So the suggestion that °© Œoh dear, it is terrible, we might move to
a two-tiered internet in the future'... well, let©s get real, we have
a very multifaceted and multitiered internet today,©‹ Heaney said.
<br>
<br>
Indeed, the major ISPs claim it would be ©¯unthinkable©‹ to return to
an internet where every packet of data was given equal weight. ©¯Yes,
the internet of 30 years ago was one in which all data, all the bits
and the packets were treated in the same way as they passed through the
network,©‹ said Simon Milner, BT©s director of group industry policy.
©¯That was an internet that wasn©t about the internet that we have
today: it wasn©t about speech, it wasn©t about video, and it
certainly wasn©t about television.
<br>
<br>
©¯Twenty years ago, the computer scientists realised that applications
would grab as much bandwidth as they needed, and therefore some tools
were needed to make this network work more effectively, and that©s why
traffic management techniques and guaranteed quality of service were
developed in the 1990s, and then deep-packet inspection came along
roughly ten years ago,©‹ he added. ©¯These techniques and equipment are
essential for the development of the internet we see today.©‹
<br>
<br>
It©s interesting to note that some smaller (and, yes, more expensive)
ISPs such as Zen Internet don©t employ any traffic shaping across
their network, and Zen has won the PC Pro
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/></a>Best
Broadband ISP award for the past seven years.
<br>
<br>
Even today©s traffic management methods can cause huge problems for
certain websites and services. Peer-to-peer services are a common
victim of ISPs© traffic management policies, often being deprioritised
to a snail©s pace during peak hours. While the intended target may be
the bandwidth hogs using BitTorrent clients to download illicit copies
of the latest movie releases, legitimate applications can also fall
victim to such blunderbuss filtering.
<br>
<br>
©¯Peer-to-peer applications are very wide ranging,©‹ said Jean-Jacques
Sahel, director of government and regulatory affairs at VoIP service
Skype. ©¯They go from the lovely peer-to-peer file-sharing applications
that were referred to in the Digital Economy Act, all the way to things
such as the BBC iPlayer [which used to run on P2P software] or Skype.
So what does that mean? If I manage my traffic from a technical
perspective, knowing that Skype actually doesn©t eat up much bandwidth
at all, why should it be deprioritised because it©s peer-to-peer?©‹
<br>
<br>
Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more
vividly than on the mobile internet
<br>
<br>
Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt more
vividly than on the mobile internet. Websites and services blocked at
the whim of the network, video so compressed it looks like an Al-Qaeda
propaganda tape, and varying charges for different types of data are
already commonplace.
<br>
<br>
Skype is outlawed by a number of British mobile networks fearful of
losing phone call revenue; 02 bans iPhone owners from watching the BBC
iPlayer over a 3G connection; and almost all networks outlaw tethering
a mobile phone to a laptop or tablet on standard ©¯unlimited data©‹
contracts.
<br>
<br>
Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, has this
chilling warning for fixed-line broadband users: ©¯Look at the mobile
market, think if that is how you want your internet and your devices to
work in the future, because that©s where things are leading.©‹
<br>
<br>
Video blockers
<br>
<br>
Until now, fixed-line ISPs have largely resisted the more drastic
blocking measures chosen by the mobile operators. But if there©s one
area in which ISPs are gagging to rip up what©s left of the cherished
concept of net neutrality, it©s video.
<br>
<br>
Streaming video recently overtook peer-to-peer to become the largest
single category of internet traffic, according to Cisco©s Visual
Networking Index. It©s the chief reason why the amount of data used by
the average internet connection has shot up by 31% over the past year,
to a once unthinkable 14.9GB a month.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159070></a>
<br>
Managing video traffic is unquestionably a major headache for ISPs and
broadcasters alike. ISPs are introducing ever tighter traffic
management policies to make sure networks don©t collapse under the
weight of video-on-demand during peak hours. Meanwhile, broadcasters
such as the BBC and Channel 4 pay content delivery networks (CDNs) such
as Akamai millions of pounds every year to distribute their video
across the network and closer to the consumer; this helps avoid
bandwidth bottlenecks when tens of thousands of people attempt to
stream The Apprentice at the same time.
<br>
<br>
Now the ISPs want to cut out the middleman and get video broadcasters
to pay them °© instead of the CDNs °© for guaranteed bandwidth. So if,
for example, the BBC wants to guarantee that TalkTalk customers can
watch uninterrupted HD streams from iPlayer, it had better be willing
to pay for the privilege. A senior executive at a major broadcaster
told PC Pro that his company has already been approached by two leading
ISPs looking to cut such a deal.
<br>
<br>
Broadcasters willing to pay will be put into the ©¯fast lane©‹; those
who don©t will be left to fight their way through the regular internet
traffic jams. Whether or not you can watch a video, perhaps even one
you©ve paid for, may no longer depend on the raw speed of your
connection or the amount of network congestion, but whether the
broadcaster has paid your ISP for a prioritised stream.
<br>
<br>
©¯We absolutely could see situations in which some content or
application providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service
above best efforts,©‹ admitted BT©s Simon Milner at a recent
Westminster eForum. ©¯That is the kind of thing that we©d have to
explain in our traffic management policies, and indeed we©d do so, and
then if somebody decided, Œwell, actually I don©t want to have that
kind of service©, they would be free to go elsewhere.©‹
<br>
<br>
We absolutely could see situations in which some content or application
providers might want to pay BT for a quality of service above best
efforts
<br>
<br>
It gets worse. Asked directly at the same forum whether TalkTalk would
be willing to cut off access completely to BBC iPlayer in favour of
YouTube if the latter was prepared to sign a big enough cheque,
TalkTalk©s Andrew Heaney replied: ©¯We©d do a deal, and we©d look at
YouTube and we©d look at BBC and we should have freedom to sign
whatever deal works.©‹
<br>
<br>
That©s the country©s two biggest ISPs °© with more than eight million
broadband households between them °© openly admitting they©d either
cut off or effectively cripple video streams from an internet
<br>
broadcaster if it wasn©t willing to hand over a wedge of cash.
<br>
<br>
Understandably, many of the leading broadcasters are fearful. ©¯The
founding principle of the internet is that everyone °© from individuals
to global companies °© has equal access,©‹ wrote the BBC©s director of
future media and technology, Erik Huggers, in a recent blog post on net
neutrality. ©¯Since the beginning, the internet has been Œneutral©,
and everyone has been treated the same. But the emergence of fast and
slow lanes allow broadband providers to effectively pick and choose
what you see first and fastest.©‹
<br>
<br>
ITV also opposes broadband providers being allowed to shut out certain
sites or services. ©¯We strongly believe that traffic throttling
shouldn©t be conducted on the basis of content provider; throttling
access to content from a particular company or institution,©‹ the
broadcaster said in a recent submission to regulator Ofcom©s
consultation on net neutrality.
<br>
<br>
Sky, on the other hand °© which is both a broadcaster and one of the
country©s leading ISPs, and a company that could naturally benefit
from shutting out rival broadcasters °© raised no such objection in its
submission to Ofcom. ©¯Competition can and should be relied upon to
provide the necessary consumer safeguards,©‹ Sky argued.
<br>
<br>
Can it? Would YouTube °© which was initially run from a small office
above a pizzeria before Google weighed in with its $1.65 billion
takeover °© have got off the ground if its three founders had been
forced to pay ISPs across the globe to ensure its videos could be
watched smoothly? It seems unlikely.
<br>
<br>
Walled-garden web
<br>
<br>
It isn©t only high-bandwidth video sites that could potentially be
blocked by ISPs. Virtually any type of site could find itself barred if
one of its rivals has signed an exclusive deal with an ISP, returning
the web to the kind of AOL walled-garden approach of the late 1990s.
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/gallery/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/159073></a>
<br>
This isn©t journalistic scaremongering: the prospect of hugely popular
sites being blocked by ISPs is already being debated by the Government.
©¯I sign up to the two-year contract [with an ISP] and after 18 months
my daughter comes and knocks on the lounge door and says Œfather, I
can©t access Facebook any more©,©‹ hypothesised Nigel Hickson, head
of international ICT policy at the Department for Business, Innovation
and Skills. ©¯I say ŒWhy?©. She says ŒIt©s quite obvious, I have gone
to the site and I have found that TalkTalk, BT, Virgin, Sky, whatever,
don©t take Facebook any more. Facebook wouldn©t pay them the money,
but YouTube has, so I have gone to YouTube©: Minister, is that
acceptable? That is the sort of question we face.©‹
<br>
<br>
Where©s the regulator?
<br>
<br>
So what does Ofcom, the regulator that likes to say ©¯yes©‹, think
about the prospect of ISPs putting some sites in the fast lane and
leaving the rest to scrap over the remaining bandwidth? It ran a
consultation on net neutrality earlier this year, with spiky
contributions from ISPs and broadcasters alike, but it appears to be
coming down on the side of the broadband providers.
<br>
<br>
©¯I think we were very clear in our discussion document [on net
neutrality] that we see the real economic merits to the idea of
allowing a two-sided market to emerge,©‹ said Alex Blowers,
international director at Ofcom.
<br>
<br>
©¯Particularly for applications such as IPTV, where it seems to us that
the consumer expectation will be a service that©s of a reasonably
consistent quality, that allows you to actually sit down at the
beginning of a film and watch it to the end without constant problems
of jitter or the picture hanging,©‹ he said. Taking that argument to
its logical conclusion means that broadcasters who refuse to pay the
ISPs© bounty will be subject to stuttering quality.
<br>
<br>
Broadcasters are urging the regulator to be tougher. ©¯We are concerned
that Ofcom isn©t currently taking a firm stance in relation to
throttling,©‹ ITV said in its submission to the regulator. The BBC also
said it has ©¯concerns about the increasing potential incentives for
discriminatory behaviour by network operators, which risks undermining
the internet©s character, and ultimately resulting in consumer harm©‹.
<br>
<br>
Ofcom©s Blowers argues regulation would be premature as ©¯there is
very little evidence©‹ that ©¯the big beasts of the content application
and services world are coming together and doing deals with big beasts
of the network and ISP world©‹.
<br>
<br>
The regulator also places great faith in the power of competition: the
theory that broadband subscribers would simply jump ship to another ISP
if their provider started doing beastly things °© for example, cutting
off services such as the iPlayer. It©s a theory echoed by the ISPs
themselves. ©¯If we started blocking access to certain news sites, you
could be sure within about 23 minutes it would be up on a blog and
we©d be chastised for it, quite rightly too,©‹ said TalkTalk©s
Heaney.
<br>
<br>
First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute the
content, services and applications they want
<br>
<br>
Yet, in the age of bundled packages °© where broadband subscriptions
are routinely sold as part of the same deal as TV, telephone or mobile
services °© hopping from one ISP to another is rarely simple. Not to
mention the 18-month or two-year contracts broadband customers are
frequently chained to. As the BBC pointed out in its submission to the
regulator, ©¯Ofcom©s 2009 research showed that a quarter of households
found it difficult to switch broadband and bundled services©‹, with the
©¯perceived hassle of the switching process©‹ and ©¯the threat of
additional charges©‹ dissuading potential switchers.
<br>
<br>
©¯Once you have bought a device or entered a contract, that©s that,©‹
argued the Open Rights Group©s Jim Killock. ©¯So you make your choice
and you lump it, whereas the whole point of the internet is you make
your choice, you don©t like it, you change your mind.©‹
<br>
<br>
The best hope of maintaining the status quo of a free and open internet
may lie with the EU (although even its determination is wavering). The
EU©s 2009 framework requires national regulators such as Ofcom to
promote ©¯the ability of end users to access and distribute information
or run applications and services of their choice©‹ and that ISPs are
transparent about any traffic management.
<br>
<br>
It even pre-empts the scenario of ISPs putting favoured partners in the
©¯fast lane©‹ and crippling the rest, by giving Ofcom the power to set
©¯minimum quality of service requirements©‹ °© forcing ISPs to reserve
a set amount of bandwidth so that their traffic management doesn©t
hobble those sites that can©t afford to pay.
<br>
<br>
It©s a concept enthusiastically backed by the BBC and others, but not
by the ISPs or Ofcom, which doesn©t have to use this new power handed
down by Brussels and seems reluctant to do so. ©¯There doesn©t yet
seem to us to be an overwhelming case for a public intervention that
would effectively create a new industry structure around this idea of a
guaranteed Œbest efforts© internet underpinned by legislation,©‹ said
Ofcom©s Blowers.
<br>
<br>
It©s an attitude that sparks dismay from campaigners. ©¯Ofcom©s
approach creates large risks for the open internet,©‹ said Killock.
©¯Its attempts to manage and mitigate the risks are weak, by relying on
transparency and competition alone, and it©s unfortunate it hasn©t
addressed the idea of a minimum service guarantee.©‹
<br>
<br>
At least the EU is adamant that ISPs shouldn©t be permitted to block
legal websites or services that conflict with their commercial
interests. ©¯First and foremost, users should be able to access and
distribute the content, services and applications they want,©‹ said
European Commission vice president Neelie Kroes earlier this year.
<br>
©¯Discrimination against undesired competitors °© for instance, those
providing voice-over the internet services °© shouldn©t be allowed.©‹
<br>
<br>
Yet, Ofcom doesn©t even regard this as a major issue. ©¯When VoIP
services were first launched in the UK, most [mobile] network operators
were against permitting VoIP,©‹ Blowers said. ©¯We now know that you
can find packages from a number of suppliers that do permit VoIP
services.
<br>
So I©m not as pessimistic as some may be that this kind of gaming
behaviour around blocking services will be a real problem.©‹
<br>
<br>
If the EU doesn©t drag the UK©s relaxed regulator into line with the
rest of the world, it will be British internet users who have the real
problem.
<br>
<br>
Author: Barry Collins
<br>
<br>
<br>
Read more:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a>The
end of the net as we know it | Broadband | Features | PC Pro
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.
pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y"><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y">http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/364573/the-end-of-the-net-as-we-know-it/print#ixzz1BpvJk95Y</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--
<br>
PK
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"><http://www.igcaucus.org/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"><http://www.igcaucus.org/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"><http://www.igcaucus.org/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"><http://translate.google.com/translate_t></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"><http://translate.google.com/translate_t></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"><http://translate.google.com/translate_t></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"><http://www.igcaucus.org/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"><http://www.igcaucus.org/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"><http://www.igcaucus.org/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"><http://translate.google.com/translate_t></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"><http://translate.google.com/translate_t></a><a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"><http://translate.google.com/translate_t></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
--
<br>
PK
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"><http://www.igcaucus.org/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"><http://translate.google.com/translate_t></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org"><mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org></a><a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing"><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance"><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/"><http://www.igcaucus.org/></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email:
<a class="moz-txt-link-rfc2396E" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t"><http://translate.google.com/translate_t></a><a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
--
<br>
PK
<br>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
____________________________________________________________
<br>
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:governance@lists.cpsr.org">governance@lists.cpsr.org</a>
<br>
To be removed from the list, visit:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing">http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing</a>
<br>
<br>
For all other list information and functions, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance">http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance</a>
<br>
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://www.igcaucus.org/">http://www.igcaucus.org/</a>
<br>
<br>
Translate this email: <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="http://translate.google.com/translate_t">http://translate.google.com/translate_t</a>
<br>
<br>
<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">--
PK</pre>
</body>
</html>