5 ms·

BBC Trust Vice Chairman on net neutrality

50 points by msdi 15y ago

ukhmm 15y ago
Is there a UK body similar to the eff that is fighting these kinds of battles?
- robin_reala 15y ago
  You’re looking for the Open Rights Group ( http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ )
  - nodata 15y ago
    In a similar vein: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk
    - Chris_Newton 15y ago
      I'm not aware that Liberty have expressed a formal opinion on net neutrality or the various recent suggestions that Internet access should now be considered a fundamental human right, though if anyone has seen something relevant then I would be interested to read it. I suspect Liberty are more concerned right now with the various mass Internet snooping provisions that seem to keep cropping up. Net neutrality seems a little on the commercial side and perhaps a little below the radar of an organisation that is campaigning against things on the level of torture, detention without trial, freedom to protest peacefully, etc.
  - nyodeneD 15y ago
    There's also European Digital Rights: http://www.edri.org/ http://www.edri.org/
- Chris_Newton 15y ago
  It's going to get noticed if you've got the BBC Trust, which is potentially a very influential organisation, pitching in. This article seems like exactly the kind of intelligent, rational contribution this debate needs.
scanr 15y ago
While I applaud their efforts, it's not like the BBC is unbiased. iPlayer benefits massively from 'net neutrality'. I recall speaking to an ISP who mentioned that 90% of their traffic during the olympics was iPlayer traffic. I'm completely for net neutrality but I don't think it has addressed the potential for a tragedy of the commons.
- falcolas 15y ago
  And that's the fundamental disconnect. The BBC is not getting a free ride. They are paying for the bandwidth they use - through their own ISP & CDN bills. Granted, it's probably not the same provider, however why should that matter? They're paying to get that bandwidth somehow. They shouldn't have to pay even more to every little provider so their traffic is not deprioritized. If the ISP needs more money, they should charge their users more. They're the ones using the bandwidth - not the BBC.
  - rvkennedy 15y ago
    Not only that, but no ISP customer can ever download more from iPlayer or any other service than they have already paid for with their ISP subscription, or use more bandwidth than they were promised when they signed up. On the one hand, ISP's offer "50Mb broadband", on the other they get the vapours when people actually use it.
    - scanr 15y ago
      Yeah, I've been thinking about this and I agree with you. The problem here is the ISP pricing models. As part of their marketing, they create 'uncapped' tariffs based on a business model that says that most users won't download a great deal of data. iPlayer breaks that model but what it should mean is that ISPs re-evaluate their pricing plans rather than creating a tiered internet which has the incentives in all the wrong places. Amusingly, some ISPs do quite well out of iPlayer. Plusnet has a fantastically cheap capped deal (6.95, which I suspect is a loss leader) that users almost immediately exceed by switching on iPlayer.
  - nyodeneD 15y ago
billybob 15y ago
Side point: "Four out of five people think that internet access is a fundamental right, according to a recent World Service poll in 26 different countries." I'm all for net neutrality, ISP competition, etc, but this "right" makes no sense to me. Operating an ISP costs money. Why is anyone entitled to an ISP's services without paying for them?
- Natsu 15y ago
  > Operating an ISP costs money. Why is anyone entitled to an ISP's services without paying for them? I think that "right" is the wrong way to express the idea, because it leads down a path to arguing over the metaphysics of rights instead of all the important practical considerations. Internet access is becoming necessary in the same way as transportation is necessary and society needs to accommodate that fact. Among other things, that means that we have a vested interest in making sure that there's a healthy marketplace, that everyone can get connections at a decent speed, and that you can't just arbitrarily get kicked offline forever.
- barrkel 15y ago
  I think you're reading that incorrectly; you seem to be interpreting it as "free as in beer" rather than "free as in speech". Rather, the idea that the government can "ban" people from using the internet is something that should not be allowed, because access to the internet is a fundamental requirement for fully living in today's society. A bit like freedom of the press. Nobody suggests that means that newspapers or printing presses should be free.
- sycren 15y ago
  Many systems are migrating to the net, for example paying bills for utilities or other governmental (uk) facilities. If the three strikes legislation were in action and someone was cut off, they stand to lose a lot more than just their internet connection. Handling my virgin broadband connection using the ebill site rather than having letters sent every month saves me £5 ($8) per month.
  - Chris_Newton 15y ago
anamax 15y ago
AFAIK, no one has ever suggested that the phone company is entitled to a percentage of the money that a biz makes by using the phone. Instead, phone companies have to make do with biz charges that are the same for all biz and based solely on usage and installed equipment. So, it's unclear why ISPs should be any different. I've often hoped that Google would do a "day without google" for ISPs that felt that they were entitled to a cut. I think that ISPs would feel the pain long before Google and I'm optimistic enough to think that the lesson would not have to be taught many times.
- wmf 15y ago
  This is the dark side of all the geeks saying "the Internet isn't like telephones" and "don't regulate the Internet" for so many years.
- seabee 15y ago
  > AFAIK, no one has ever suggested that the phone company is entitled to a percentage of the money that a biz makes by using the phone. Instead, phone companies have to make do with biz charges that are the same for all biz and based solely on usage and installed equipment. Look up 'premium-rate telephone numbers', in which the phone company and the line-leasing business enter a revenue sharing agreement. Now is it unclear why ISPs should be any different?
  - anamax 15y ago
    'premium-rate telephone numbers', aka 976-porn and 1-900-more-porn are for biz that use the phone company as a billing/collections agent. This is pretty much the exact opposite - the ISPs are asking the biz to be their billing/collections agent. I have no problems with an ISP offering to do billing for internet companies that wanted it, or offering to give some of the money that they collect from their customers to internet-based biz for services rendered. However, that's the opposite of what they're proposing.
mcgwiz 15y ago
There are other possibile outcomes to tiered access that are not being discussed. Offering tiered service to content publishers does not mean that traffic from those publishers must be prioritized for all consumers. Specifically, tiered publisher access can subsidize a new level of "subsidized" internet service, with price Y that is lower than the "neutral service" price X. More households will be able to access the internet as a result. Those households that prefer to continue receiving all publisher content in a "neutral" way may continue to do so (at the same price X). Creative consumer education (as implied by Ofcom) can assist in this. ISPs are incentivized to do this because they can reach more consumers this way, ultimately increasing their bottom line. ISPs that do not pair prioritized publisher service with subsidized consumer service (as described above) will whither in the face of competition from ISPs that do. Regulation cannot be considered without acknowledgement of the potential to stifle innovation in the internet service business and related technologies.
- nodata 15y ago
  Can you give some examples of where this has worked? (excluding models which require the consumer to buy other stuff with the money they saved)
  - mcgwiz 15y ago
    I'm unaware of any ISP offering priority transport in any form, including the consumer subsidy model I've described above. But if regulations were put in place, it would be illegal even to experiment with business models such as this.
    - nodata 15y ago
      What about in other industries?
      - mcgwiz 15y ago
        To generalize this to other industries, the subsidy model I detailed can be described simply as offering reduced service quality at a reduced cost. This is a universal strategy of marketing.

50 points by msdi 15y ago

ukhmm 15y ago

Is there a UK body similar to the eff that is fighting these kinds of battles?

robin_reala 15y ago
You’re looking for the Open Rights Group ( http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ http://www.openrightsgroup.org/ )
- nodata 15y ago
  In a similar vein: http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk
  - Chris_Newton 15y ago
    I'm not aware that Liberty have expressed a formal opinion on net neutrality or the various recent suggestions that Internet access should now be considered a fundamental human right, though if anyone has seen something relevant then I would be interested to read it. I suspect Liberty are more concerned right now with the various mass Internet snooping provisions that seem to keep cropping up. Net neutrality seems a little on the commercial side and perhaps a little below the radar of an organisation that is campaigning against things on the level of torture, detention without trial, freedom to protest peacefully, etc.
- nyodeneD 15y ago
  There's also European Digital Rights: http://www.edri.org/ http://www.edri.org/
Chris_Newton 15y ago
It's going to get noticed if you've got the BBC Trust, which is potentially a very influential organisation, pitching in. This article seems like exactly the kind of intelligent, rational contribution this debate needs.

scanr 15y ago

While I applaud their efforts, it's not like the BBC is unbiased. iPlayer benefits massively from 'net neutrality'. I recall speaking to an ISP who mentioned that 90% of their traffic during the olympics was iPlayer traffic. I'm completely for net neutrality but I don't think it has addressed the potential for a tragedy of the commons.

falcolas 15y ago
And that's the fundamental disconnect. The BBC is not getting a free ride. They are paying for the bandwidth they use - through their own ISP & CDN bills. Granted, it's probably not the same provider, however why should that matter? They're paying to get that bandwidth somehow. They shouldn't have to pay even more to every little provider so their traffic is not deprioritized. If the ISP needs more money, they should charge their users more. They're the ones using the bandwidth - not the BBC.
- rvkennedy 15y ago
  Not only that, but no ISP customer can ever download more from iPlayer or any other service than they have already paid for with their ISP subscription, or use more bandwidth than they were promised when they signed up. On the one hand, ISP's offer "50Mb broadband", on the other they get the vapours when people actually use it.
  - scanr 15y ago
    Yeah, I've been thinking about this and I agree with you. The problem here is the ISP pricing models. As part of their marketing, they create 'uncapped' tariffs based on a business model that says that most users won't download a great deal of data. iPlayer breaks that model but what it should mean is that ISPs re-evaluate their pricing plans rather than creating a tiered internet which has the incentives in all the wrong places. Amusingly, some ISPs do quite well out of iPlayer. Plusnet has a fantastically cheap capped deal (6.95, which I suspect is a loss leader) that users almost immediately exceed by switching on iPlayer.
- nyodeneD 15y ago

billybob 15y ago

Side point: "Four out of five people think that internet access is a fundamental right, according to a recent World Service poll in 26 different countries." I'm all for net neutrality, ISP competition, etc, but this "right" makes no sense to me. Operating an ISP costs money. Why is anyone entitled to an ISP's services without paying for them?

Natsu 15y ago
> Operating an ISP costs money. Why is anyone entitled to an ISP's services without paying for them? I think that "right" is the wrong way to express the idea, because it leads down a path to arguing over the metaphysics of rights instead of all the important practical considerations. Internet access is becoming necessary in the same way as transportation is necessary and society needs to accommodate that fact. Among other things, that means that we have a vested interest in making sure that there's a healthy marketplace, that everyone can get connections at a decent speed, and that you can't just arbitrarily get kicked offline forever.
barrkel 15y ago
I think you're reading that incorrectly; you seem to be interpreting it as "free as in beer" rather than "free as in speech". Rather, the idea that the government can "ban" people from using the internet is something that should not be allowed, because access to the internet is a fundamental requirement for fully living in today's society. A bit like freedom of the press. Nobody suggests that means that newspapers or printing presses should be free.
sycren 15y ago
Many systems are migrating to the net, for example paying bills for utilities or other governmental (uk) facilities. If the three strikes legislation were in action and someone was cut off, they stand to lose a lot more than just their internet connection. Handling my virgin broadband connection using the ebill site rather than having letters sent every month saves me £5 ($8) per month.
- Chris_Newton 15y ago

anamax 15y ago

AFAIK, no one has ever suggested that the phone company is entitled to a percentage of the money that a biz makes by using the phone. Instead, phone companies have to make do with biz charges that are the same for all biz and based solely on usage and installed equipment. So, it's unclear why ISPs should be any different. I've often hoped that Google would do a "day without google" for ISPs that felt that they were entitled to a cut. I think that ISPs would feel the pain long before Google and I'm optimistic enough to think that the lesson would not have to be taught many times.

wmf 15y ago
This is the dark side of all the geeks saying "the Internet isn't like telephones" and "don't regulate the Internet" for so many years.
seabee 15y ago
> AFAIK, no one has ever suggested that the phone company is entitled to a percentage of the money that a biz makes by using the phone. Instead, phone companies have to make do with biz charges that are the same for all biz and based solely on usage and installed equipment. Look up 'premium-rate telephone numbers', in which the phone company and the line-leasing business enter a revenue sharing agreement. Now is it unclear why ISPs should be any different?
- anamax 15y ago
  'premium-rate telephone numbers', aka 976-porn and 1-900-more-porn are for biz that use the phone company as a billing/collections agent. This is pretty much the exact opposite - the ISPs are asking the biz to be their billing/collections agent. I have no problems with an ISP offering to do billing for internet companies that wanted it, or offering to give some of the money that they collect from their customers to internet-based biz for services rendered. However, that's the opposite of what they're proposing.

mcgwiz 15y ago

There are other possibile outcomes to tiered access that are not being discussed. Offering tiered service to content publishers does not mean that traffic from those publishers must be prioritized for all consumers. Specifically, tiered publisher access can subsidize a new level of "subsidized" internet service, with price Y that is lower than the "neutral service" price X. More households will be able to access the internet as a result. Those households that prefer to continue receiving all publisher content in a "neutral" way may continue to do so (at the same price X). Creative consumer education (as implied by Ofcom) can assist in this. ISPs are incentivized to do this because they can reach more consumers this way, ultimately increasing their bottom line. ISPs that do not pair prioritized publisher service with subsidized consumer service (as described above) will whither in the face of competition from ISPs that do. Regulation cannot be considered without acknowledgement of the potential to stifle innovation in the internet service business and related technologies.

nodata 15y ago
Can you give some examples of where this has worked? (excluding models which require the consumer to buy other stuff with the money they saved)
- mcgwiz 15y ago
  I'm unaware of any ISP offering priority transport in any form, including the consumer subsidy model I've described above. But if regulations were put in place, it would be illegal even to experiment with business models such as this.
  - nodata 15y ago
    What about in other industries?
    - mcgwiz 15y ago
      To generalize this to other industries, the subsidy model I detailed can be described simply as offering reduced service quality at a reduced cost. This is a universal strategy of marketing.