Broadband News

Vaizey clarifies position on maintaining an 'open internet'

Ed Vaizey has come out saying he supports net neutrality to clarify comments made in a speech earlier in the week. Vaizey was criticised for saying that the Internet should be only lightly regulated in the UK favouring innovation by ISPs to help them manager their networks as they see fit.

The general consensus amongst the Internet community is that companies should not be able to buy better network access which could lead to a two-tier Internet where some providers are favoured over others. A good example of this is where a broadband provider such as Sky could perform traffic shaping so that the BBC iPlayer would perform badly over their network in favour that customers which content from Sky's own similar service.

"My first and overriding priority is an open internet where consumers have access to all legal content. Should the internet develop in a way that was detrimental to consumer interests we would seek to intervene.

I don't accept the premise that I am not protecting the internet from enormous commercial concerns. I'm all in favour of innovation providing it's not detrimental to consumers. People are already entitled to choose the speed of their connection, but we're not saying one ISP should be able to prioritise one provider's content over another and I don't support the commercial decision to downgrade a rivals site."

Ed Vaizey, Communications Minister

Whilst consumers in the UK are in a somewhat unique position of having a large choice of broadband providers available to them, allowing them to vote with their wallet, this isn't the case in other countries such as the US where one operator tends to dominate a region.

Comments

The service i am able to get from my isp doesn't see congestion ect,or shaped why
1, not oversold (silly cheap prices)
2, has lot's of redundancy (spare capacity ,routing)
IMHO i think the average monthly price for ADSL2+ should be £20 £25, and scrap the bundling idea that certain isp's do,
They also should not be supplying subscibed tv services on their networks, if that network, if doing so has a detrimental impact on the service levels to it's bb customers

  • tommy45
  • over 7 years ago

I've thought that about £1.50 per Mbps is reasonable. Wouldn't leave BT with a lot of revenue though with a whole swathe of connections netting £3 a month, though it would certainly supply the incentive to upgrade them which is presently missing. But then I'm not really one for price controls - think we had that in the 1970s :-)

  • MarkHampshire
  • over 7 years ago

If controlling the price of bb sees an overall significant improvement in the majority of customer's experience in using their bb connection,then what's the problem in doing that,this everyone online by whatever year, is b/s the infrastructure and investment isn't in place to enable that

  • tommy45
  • over 7 years ago

Certainly with any reasonable level of service, the system as is needs change,if legislation is needed then it should be made so that no isp is able to oversubscribe it's services in the future, and that all isp's should have to provide a defined service levels,covering contention,and other network related issues, and also customer service/tech support too, stop some of the outsourcing to overseas call centers

  • tommy45
  • over 7 years ago

In terms of basic functionality, like banking, buying insurance - the stuff that saves us all money. e.g. 5% off the price of a £400 policy, pays for the broadband for a month.

Then infrastructure can cope, its the low latency jitter free stuff like gaming, and the higher bandwidth demands at peak times from video streaming that are pushing things.

If an ISP is so contended that HTTPS and purchases are failing to work, then they do not deserve to be in business.

  • andrew
  • thinkbroadband staff
  • over 7 years ago

then curb the video streaming as it is non essential for most of us anyway,

  • tommy45
  • over 7 years ago

People keep seeing this as a matter of network space, but the real issue here is control which equals profit. Even if there was enough bandwidth for everyone, if things keep progressing down this path then we end users would end up paying fee's to access certain sites. And certain sites would end up having to pay isp's to allow access. Also note the alarming use of the words "legal content".....

  • laurence1211
  • over 7 years ago

has anyone used a netmeter or speed check ???

DO NOTE that many sites actually limit the connection speed to their site!! youtube and other video sites do this..

  • comnut
  • over 7 years ago

We wouldn't expect a Govt minister to advocate illegal content, Shirley?

  • herdwick
  • over 7 years ago

Pay for what you use @ £100 per month per Mbit/s at the 95%ile actual used rather than line capability.

  • herdwick
  • over 7 years ago

"then curb the video streaming as it is non essential for most of us anyway, " tommy45
So I can't watch iPlayer on my internet connected TV then? Just because you don't use it doesn't make it "non-essential"

  • Scubaholic
  • over 7 years ago

When ever our government legislates it always contains bad things.

Since we don't have this issue over here we shouldn't be raising it.

Even if my ISP did the throttle it wouldn't effect me anyways; VPN.

  • otester
  • over 7 years ago

I am not saying that by curbing it, it would mean that you could no longer watch streamed tv, just that it should have a lower priority, failing that, if there is sufficient demand tv dedicated packages for those who want to use the net for such, at the end of the day the infrastructure is inefficient in dealing with demand on many networks so it's either cut down of traffic or expand networks, money is needed for the latter, so by by to cheap bb

  • tommy45
  • over 7 years ago

as for open internet that's the last thing this and other governments want, they want control of it, as do the film & music industries as it don't belong to them they should take a long walk of a short pier, preferably when it's a very high tide , Mandelscum could go first

  • tommy45
  • over 7 years ago

".... having a large choice of broadband providers available to them".., ".. this isn't the case in .. the US where one operator tends to dominate ..."

erm.. the US has loads of operators in different regions.. if the researchers bothered to look at the long established and fast developing fixed wireless market over there.. The "large choice" over here is 99% FAKE.. most areas rely on market 1 BT exchanges, the choice is the same cruddy speed line from any of them.. its about as competitive as the energy industry, they all sell the same product from the same source too.

  • kijoma
  • over 6 years ago

Post a comment

Login Register