

BBC Trust Vice Chairman on net neutrality - msdi
http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/news/comment/open_internet.shtml

======
scanr
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
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
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
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.

------
mcgwiz
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
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
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
What about in other industries?

~~~
mcgwiz
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.

------
billybob
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?

~~~
sycren
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
As a company director in the UK, I am legally responsible for making sure that
the company meets its legal and regulatory obligations. Some of those
obligations involve filing regular returns with HM Revenue & Customs,
Companies House, etc. Some of those filings _must_ now be made using on-line
systems.

As a citizen in the UK, I am also legally responsible for providing various
information to government departments and renewing various statutory services
and licences from time to time: filing a personal tax return, driving licence,
TV licence, electoral registration, etc. Once again, much of this is now done
on-line, though I don't think any of the above are on-line only yet.

I'm not sure I'd go as far as putting Internet access on the level of
"fundamental human right". As someone concerned about the recent erosion of
far too many genuinely fundamental rights in far too many places, that seems
like a loss of perspective. But you can't be asking people to file legal stuff
on-line one minute, evangelising about high-speed nationwide broadband as an
engine for getting the economy moving again the next minute, and then
threatening to cut people off from the Internet based on... less than robust
arguments made in some extra-judicial process, let's say. That just doesn't
make any sense at all.

~~~
sycren
You're right, it doesn't make any sense to call it a fundamental right on that
basis, but would you not say that by filling out these forms or by using the
Internet in other ways you are more efficient than if you could not use it at
all? If this is true, would this not then put you at a significant commercial
disadvantage without the internet against your competitors?

------
anamax
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.

~~~
seabee
> 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
'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.

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

~~~
robin_reala
You’re looking for the Open Rights Group ( <http://www.openrightsgroup.org/> )

~~~
nodata
In a similar vein: <http://www.liberty-human-rights.org.uk>

~~~
Chris_Newton
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.

