8 ms·

UK Government: will not support Net Neutrality

29 points by justsee 16y ago

Isofarro 16y ago
I suppose that will end up giving ISPs the right to charge the BBC for handling their video stream traffic. Which effectively means private companies siphoning off BBC license revenue for their own pockets. I really hope that if they go ahead with this that they clear all barriers to allow the BBC to run it's own ISP, and compete on selection of netural traffic. At least that way, people get a choice how many times they pay for the same content. What good is video content streaming from a public broadcaster if you have to pay private organisations again to see that content you've already paid the BBC for?
- frou_dh 16y ago
  The TV license is currently only required for watching traditional TV, live, isn't it? I haven't paid it for years, and exclusively use the on-demand BBC iPlayer website every so often.
  - konad 16y ago
    you're right but they want to change that
  - gjm11 16y ago
    This appears to be correct, though it's not guaranteed to remain so: see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_not_require_a_tv_1.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_... and http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/... . [EDITED to add: But if you watch a programme at the same time as it's being broadcast, you do need a licence.]
  - axod 16y ago
    Don't you feel like you should get a license? Regardless of wether you're legally supposed to. The sheer quality of programming they put out. Buy a license.
    - frou_dh 16y ago
      I don't watch often enough. I'd consider microtransactions in the iPlayer, but not a flat £145 per year.
      - eftpotrm 16y ago
        Which is from memory less than Sky charges for content that includes adverts and is (IMHO) of vastly lower quality. Certainly far less of Sky's content is original productions.
        frou_dh 16y ago
        I'd never get Sky. In fact I convinced a family member to cancel theirs becuase they were getting little value from it.
- rodh 16y ago
  An interesting question I'm starting to ask myself is whether giving the ISPs this option might finally give them the incentive to make multicasting a paid-for service for broadcasters, potentially driving down the net cost to broadcasters. Hmmm... (Disclaimer: these views are my own, etc.)
- gaius 16y ago
  Which effectively means private companies siphoning off BBC license revenue for their own pockets Then you don't know much about the BBC, it's been farming work out to private companies for a lloooonng time. Do you think it currently gets its bandwidth for free? Or provided by another government department?
  - Leynos 16y ago
    In those instances, the BBC is paying for a product. In the case being discussed here, the BBC is being shaken down.
    - gaius 16y ago
      It's "paying" someone to operate its antennas too, you know.
- crnflke 16y ago
  The thing is - if the BBC pay they're being utterly stupid "Your ISP doesn't support the BBC IPlayer - please let them know about it here" strikes me as a pretty obvious marketing tool. In exactly the same way, not providing access to youtube would probably be the most moronic thing most ISPs could do. If the BBC pay anybody else beyond their own bandwidth costs, the top brass should be sacked.
  - eftpotrm 16y ago
    But.... that only works for the big boys. Imagine how YouTube would've got going if this rule had been around in 2005 - they'd have been strangled at birth by individual ISPs each demanding their own contract and their own payment. What we have here is fundamentally ISPs trying to run a private toll booth by claiming that 'others are profiting from their network'. Not at all true. The BBC, YouTube, whoever, all pay their outgoing bandwidth bills to their network provided. I pay my incoming bandwidth bill to my network provider (and outgoing, for that matter, when I put my content provider hat on and legally upload to various sites). All parties are getting correctly paid in proportion to the value of the services that they are delivering, but the ISPs know they are a critical man-in-the-middle and can potentially extract value from this proposition in exactly the same way that rebel armies set up 'checkpoints' in territories they control. ISPs should be ashamed that they're trying it. The Conservative Party should be utterly ashamed that they think it's a good idea and I plan to write to my local (Conservative) MP to inform him of this.
alextgordon 16y ago
This is not such a big deal as it would be in the US. We have a lot more competition, so "let the market sort it out" is more or less a reasonable position.
- axod 16y ago
  Exactly. I can get my Internet connection from 100+ companies. In the US, as far as I've seen, it's 2 companies if you're lucky. In the UK, the market will decide what people want from their internet connection, and customers have more than enough choice to decide what they want. I'm glad the government is keeping out of it.
  - alextgordon 16y ago
    To give a real world example: Quite a few ISPs in the UK institute bandwidth caps. Sometimes these caps can be horrendously expensive compared to the real cost of the bandwidth (i.e. high markup). But there's also quite a few ISPs with no unreasonable bandwidth caps. I have the choice to use one of these ISPs instead (and I do). Same deal with net neutrality. If non-neutral ISPs pop up, then you can be sure that neutral ones will too. There's no better selling point than "we're cheaper than those guys". I think the government is right not to mess with a well functioning market when there's not even a problem yet. I'm not so keen on them trying to spin non-neutral practices into a good thing (this may just be the article sensationalising).
    - axod 16y ago
      Good example. As for the spin, I think it's good to give people choice. For example if people want to get a cheaper internet connection that's watered down version without 'premium' websites which cost extra, then that's fair enough. I don't think anything like that would work well though. People expect the internet to mean 'everything' on a level playing field.
    - bruceboughton 16y ago
      As a counter example, if can only get your broadband via cable, you're stuck with Virgin Media (I think) who have quite an onerous capping policy [1] unless you fork out for 50Mb fibre optic. [1] http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management/traffic-management-policy.html http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management/traffic-... - in particular, note the evening fair use amount: 3.5Gb
huadie 16y ago
╭⌒╮WELCOME http://www.onseeking.com/ http://www.onseeking.com/ ----- ~ ¤ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╭⌒╮╭⌒╮～╭⌒╮ HANDBAG 35$ ,））））,''）~~ ,''~） ╱◥█◣ ╱◥█◣ SHOES 35$ ｜田｜田｜｜田｜田｜ CLOTH 15$ ╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬ 2010 NEW Your fashion! Your season! Michael bag fashion tidalcurrent.the fashionable element "bag" you - glamour infinite. Mass commodity, low discount, the buy cheaper. { www. onseeking .com } mall price can buy eligible products and services. Select all kinds of women, men's shoes, etc, { onseeking .com } shopping navigation! In addition, the company has a good reputation, quality standard, At a reasonable price. In the past few years, have been deeply overseas My friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase. ====== Free transport====== !!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.onseeking.com/ http://www.onseeking.com/) !!!!!!!!!!!! input this URL: (http://onseeking.com/ http://onseeking.com/) you can find many cheap and fashion stuff (jor dan s-h-o-e-s) (NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y) ( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g) (cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t) (D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s) (ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t) (UG G b-o-o-t) WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!! ----------------------
papaf 16y ago
This will disrupt the chances of any new media startups in the UK. It is also good news for companies like Sky that compete with the BBC and have an ISP service. Sky got good value for money donating to Ed Vaizey last election: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/100927/vaizey_edward.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/100927/...

29 points by justsee 16y ago

I suppose that will end up giving ISPs the right to charge the BBC for handling their video stream traffic. Which effectively means private companies siphoning off BBC license revenue for their own pockets. I really hope that if they go ahead with this that they clear all barriers to allow the BBC to run it's own ISP, and compete on selection of netural traffic. At least that way, people get a choice how many times they pay for the same content. What good is video content streaming from a public broadcaster if you have to pay private organisations again to see that content you've already paid the BBC for?

frou_dh 16y ago
The TV license is currently only required for watching traditional TV, live, isn't it? I haven't paid it for years, and exclusively use the on-demand BBC iPlayer website every so often.
- konad 16y ago
  you're right but they want to change that
- gjm11 16y ago
  This appears to be correct, though it's not guaranteed to remain so: see http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_not_require_a_tv_1.html http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/01/iplayer_does_... and http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/tvlicence http://iplayerhelp.external.bbc.co.uk/help/playing_tv_progs/... . [EDITED to add: But if you watch a programme at the same time as it's being broadcast, you do need a licence.]
- axod 16y ago
  Don't you feel like you should get a license? Regardless of wether you're legally supposed to. The sheer quality of programming they put out. Buy a license.
  - frou_dh 16y ago
    I don't watch often enough. I'd consider microtransactions in the iPlayer, but not a flat £145 per year.
    - eftpotrm 16y ago
      Which is from memory less than Sky charges for content that includes adverts and is (IMHO) of vastly lower quality. Certainly far less of Sky's content is original productions.
      - frou_dh 16y ago
        I'd never get Sky. In fact I convinced a family member to cancel theirs becuase they were getting little value from it.
rodh 16y ago
An interesting question I'm starting to ask myself is whether giving the ISPs this option might finally give them the incentive to make multicasting a paid-for service for broadcasters, potentially driving down the net cost to broadcasters. Hmmm... (Disclaimer: these views are my own, etc.)
gaius 16y ago
Which effectively means private companies siphoning off BBC license revenue for their own pockets Then you don't know much about the BBC, it's been farming work out to private companies for a lloooonng time. Do you think it currently gets its bandwidth for free? Or provided by another government department?
- Leynos 16y ago
  In those instances, the BBC is paying for a product. In the case being discussed here, the BBC is being shaken down.
  - gaius 16y ago
    It's "paying" someone to operate its antennas too, you know.
crnflke 16y ago
The thing is - if the BBC pay they're being utterly stupid "Your ISP doesn't support the BBC IPlayer - please let them know about it here" strikes me as a pretty obvious marketing tool. In exactly the same way, not providing access to youtube would probably be the most moronic thing most ISPs could do. If the BBC pay anybody else beyond their own bandwidth costs, the top brass should be sacked.
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  But.... that only works for the big boys. Imagine how YouTube would've got going if this rule had been around in 2005 - they'd have been strangled at birth by individual ISPs each demanding their own contract and their own payment. What we have here is fundamentally ISPs trying to run a private toll booth by claiming that 'others are profiting from their network'. Not at all true. The BBC, YouTube, whoever, all pay their outgoing bandwidth bills to their network provided. I pay my incoming bandwidth bill to my network provider (and outgoing, for that matter, when I put my content provider hat on and legally upload to various sites). All parties are getting correctly paid in proportion to the value of the services that they are delivering, but the ISPs know they are a critical man-in-the-middle and can potentially extract value from this proposition in exactly the same way that rebel armies set up 'checkpoints' in territories they control. ISPs should be ashamed that they're trying it. The Conservative Party should be utterly ashamed that they think it's a good idea and I plan to write to my local (Conservative) MP to inform him of this.

alextgordon 16y ago

This is not such a big deal as it would be in the US. We have a lot more competition, so "let the market sort it out" is more or less a reasonable position.

axod 16y ago
Exactly. I can get my Internet connection from 100+ companies. In the US, as far as I've seen, it's 2 companies if you're lucky. In the UK, the market will decide what people want from their internet connection, and customers have more than enough choice to decide what they want. I'm glad the government is keeping out of it.
- alextgordon 16y ago
  To give a real world example: Quite a few ISPs in the UK institute bandwidth caps. Sometimes these caps can be horrendously expensive compared to the real cost of the bandwidth (i.e. high markup). But there's also quite a few ISPs with no unreasonable bandwidth caps. I have the choice to use one of these ISPs instead (and I do). Same deal with net neutrality. If non-neutral ISPs pop up, then you can be sure that neutral ones will too. There's no better selling point than "we're cheaper than those guys". I think the government is right not to mess with a well functioning market when there's not even a problem yet. I'm not so keen on them trying to spin non-neutral practices into a good thing (this may just be the article sensationalising).
  - axod 16y ago
    Good example. As for the spin, I think it's good to give people choice. For example if people want to get a cheaper internet connection that's watered down version without 'premium' websites which cost extra, then that's fair enough. I don't think anything like that would work well though. People expect the internet to mean 'everything' on a level playing field.
  - bruceboughton 16y ago
    As a counter example, if can only get your broadband via cable, you're stuck with Virgin Media (I think) who have quite an onerous capping policy [1] unless you fork out for 50Mb fibre optic. [1] http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management/traffic-management-policy.html http://shop.virginmedia.com/help/traffic-management/traffic-... - in particular, note the evening fair use amount: 3.5Gb

huadie 16y ago

╭⌒╮WELCOME http://www.onseeking.com/ http://www.onseeking.com/ ----- ~ ¤ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╮ ╭⌒╭⌒╮╭⌒╮～╭⌒╮ HANDBAG 35$ ,））））,''）~~ ,''~） ╱◥█◣ ╱◥█◣ SHOES 35$ ｜田｜田｜｜田｜田｜ CLOTH 15$ ╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬╬ 2010 NEW Your fashion! Your season! Michael bag fashion tidalcurrent.the fashionable element "bag" you - glamour infinite. Mass commodity, low discount, the buy cheaper. { www. onseeking .com } mall price can buy eligible products and services. Select all kinds of women, men's shoes, etc, { onseeking .com } shopping navigation! In addition, the company has a good reputation, quality standard, At a reasonable price. In the past few years, have been deeply overseas My friends for their support. Therefore, please rest assured purchase. ====== Free transport====== !!!!!!!!!!!!!! (http://www.onseeking.com/ http://www.onseeking.com/) !!!!!!!!!!!! input this URL: (http://onseeking.com/ http://onseeking.com/) you can find many cheap and fashion stuff (jor dan s-h-o-e-s) (NBA NFL NHL MLB j-e-r-s-e-y) ( lv h-a-n-d-b-a-g) (cha nel w-a-l-l-e-t) (D&G s-u-n-g-l-a-s-s-e-s) (ed har dy j-a-c-k-e-t) (UG G b-o-o-t) WE ACCEPT PYAPAL PAYMENT YOU MUST NOT MISS IT!! ----------------------

papaf 16y ago

This will disrupt the chances of any new media startups in the UK. It is also good news for companies like Sky that compete with the BBC and have an ISP service. Sky got good value for money donating to Ed Vaizey last election: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/100927/vaizey_edward.htm http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm/cmregmem/100927/...