[governance] net neutrality
Adam Peake
ajp at glocom.ac.jp
Sun Jan 23 04:52:11 EST 2011
>Adam
>
>Hope you have no problem if i continue with this
>discussion. I am not picking holes in your
>paper, but arguing my understanding of NN, and
>what I see is the urgent need to come up with a
>global NN framework.
>
>Adam Peake wrote:
>
>>I think you could make general principles, and
>>at the level of principles what you have in
>>Norway and Japan is not so different from the
>>FCC's policy principles. Problem comes when you
>>try to enforce those principles.
>>
>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'.
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.
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.)
"it is very hard to make broad, sweeping concepts
actionable or enforceable as rules".
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?
There's been an enormous amount written over the
past year or so about the FCC's attempts to
implement some network neutrality rules.
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.
Adam
>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.
>
>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.
>
>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.
>
>Parminder
>
>>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.
>>
>>Adam
>>
>>>Thanks Adam for the paper. Just skimmed
>>>through it, but plan to read it fully later.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>Can you suggest why for instance Norway's
>>>clear NN guidelines cannot work, and work
>>>universally?
>>>(see
>>><http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf><http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf><http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf>http://www.npt.no/iKnowBase/Content/109604/Guidelines%20for%20network%20neutrality.pdf
>>>)
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>The above is a very specific and clear NN
>>>guideline. I will like to hear why is it not
>>>enforceable.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>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'.
>>>
>>>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.
>>>
>>>parminder
>>>
>>>
>>>Adam Peake wrote:
>>>
>>>>Some background
>>>><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093><http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1658093>
>>>>(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".)
>>>>
>>>>Adam
>>>>
>>>>>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The end of the net as we know it
>>>>>
>>>>>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34
>>>>>
>>>>>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites
>>>>>that don't pay them first. Barry Collins
>>>>>fears a disastrous end to net neutrality
>>>>>
>>>>>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...
>>>>>
>>>>>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.©
>>>>>
>>>>> Net neutrality? We don©t have it today
>>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>>>
>>>>>*No such thing as net neutrality*
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.
>>>>>©¯So the suggestion that °© oh 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/>
>>>>>for the past seven years.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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?©
>>>>>
>>>>> Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic management been felt
>>>>> more vividly than on the mobile internet
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>*Video blockers*
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Internet TV
>>>>><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><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>
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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, well, actually I
>>>>>don©t want to have that kind of service©,
>>>>>they would be free to go elsewhere.©
>>>>>
>>>>> 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
>>>>>
>>>>>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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>broadcaster if it wasn©t willing to hand over a wedge of cash.
>>>>>
>>>>>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 neutral©, 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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>*Walled-garden web*
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Stop sign
>>>>><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><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>
>>>>>
>>>>>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 father, 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 Why?©. She says It©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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>*Where©s the regulator?*
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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©.
>>>>>
>>>>>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©.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>> First and foremost, users should be able to access and distribute
>>>>> the content, services and applications they want
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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 best efforts©
>>>>>internet underpinned by legislation,© said
>>>>>Ofcom©s Blowers.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>©¯Discrimination against undesired
>>>>>competitors °© for instance, those providing
>>>>>voice-over the internet services °©
>>>>>shouldn©t be allowed.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>So I©m not as pessimistic as some may be
>>>>>that this kind of gaming behaviour around
>>>>>blocking services will be a real problem.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>*Author:* Barry Collins
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Read more: The end of the net as we know it
>>>>>| Broadband | Features | PC Pro
>>>>><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><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>
>>>>><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><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
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>PK
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Read below an article that got published on NN in the UK today.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>The end of the net as we know it
>>>>>
>>>>>Posted on 21 Jan 2011 at 13:34
>>>>>
>>>>>ISPs are threatening to cripple websites
>>>>>that don't pay them first. Barry Collins
>>>>>fears a disastrous end to net neutrality
>>>>>
>>>>>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...
>>>>>
>>>>>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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>Net neutrality? We don©t have it today
>>>>>
>>>>>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?
>>>>>
>>>>>No such thing as net neutrality
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.
>>>>>©¯So the suggestion that °© oh 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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/><http://www.pcpro.co.uk/html/awards-2010/>Best
>>>>>Broadband ISP award for the past seven years.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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?©
>>>>>
>>>>>Nowhere has the effect of draconian traffic
>>>>>management been felt more vividly than on
>>>>>the mobile internet
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>Video blockers
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>><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><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>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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, well, actually I
>>>>>don©t want to have that kind of service©,
>>>>>they would be free to go elsewhere.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>
>>>>>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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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
>>>>>broadcaster if it wasn©t willing to hand over a wedge of cash.
>>>>>
>>>>>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 neutral©, 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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Walled-garden web
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>><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><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>
>>>>>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 father, 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 Why?©. She says It©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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>Where©s the regulator?
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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©.
>>>>>
>>>>>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©.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>First and foremost, users should be able to
>>>>>access and distribute the content, services
>>>>>and applications they want
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>©¯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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>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 best efforts©
>>>>>internet underpinned by legislation,© said
>>>>>Ofcom©s Blowers.
>>>>>
>>>>>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.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>©¯Discrimination against undesired
>>>>>competitors °© for instance, those providing
>>>>>voice-over the internet services °©
>>>>>shouldn©t be allowed.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>So I©m not as pessimistic as some may be
>>>>>that this kind of gaming behaviour around
>>>>>blocking services will be a real problem.©
>>>>>
>>>>>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.
>>>>>
>>>>>Author: Barry Collins
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Read more:
>>>>><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><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>The
>>>>>end of the net as we know it | Broadband |
>>>>>Features | PC Pro
>>>>><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><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><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><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
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>--
>>>>>PK
>>>>>
>>>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>>
>>>>><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>>
>>>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>>
>>>>><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>>
>>>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/><http://www.igcaucus.org/><http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>>
>>>>>Translate this email:
>>>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t><http://translate.google.com/translate_t><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>>>
>>>><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org><mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>>
>>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>>
>>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>>
>>>><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>>>
>>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/><http://www.igcaucus.org/><http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>>
>>>>Translate this email:
>>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t><http://translate.google.com/translate_t><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>>
>>>
>>>--
>>>PK
>>>
>>>____________________________________________________________
>>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>>
>>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>>
>>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>>
>>><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>>
>>>Translate this email:
>>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>>
>>
>>____________________________________________________________
>>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
>> <mailto:governance at lists.cpsr.org>governance at lists.cpsr.org
>>To be removed from the list, visit:
>>
>><http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing>http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>>
>>For all other list information and functions, see:
>>
>><http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance>http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
>> <http://www.igcaucus.org/>http://www.igcaucus.org/
>>
>>Translate this email:
>><http://translate.google.com/translate_t>http://translate.google.com/translate_t
>>
>
>--
>PK
>
>____________________________________________________________
>You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
> governance at lists.cpsr.org
>To be removed from the list, visit:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
>
>For all other list information and functions, see:
> http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
>To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
> http://www.igcaucus.org/
>
>Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
____________________________________________________________
You received this message as a subscriber on the list:
governance at lists.cpsr.org
To be removed from the list, visit:
http://www.igcaucus.org/unsubscribing
For all other list information and functions, see:
http://lists.cpsr.org/lists/info/governance
To edit your profile and to find the IGC's charter, see:
http://www.igcaucus.org/
Translate this email: http://translate.google.com/translate_t
More information about the Governance
mailing list