Britain’s major Internet service providers will today sign up to a voluntary code of practice, whereby they will be compelled to give clearer information to consumers about their traffic management policies.
Under the new code, companies including BT, TalkTalk, Virgin Media, BSkyB, O2, 3UK and Vodafone will have to provide easily comparable information about how they slow down users’ connections during peak times, and what impact this will have for each broadband service they offer. Those companies taking part account for 90 percent of all fixed-line broadband customers and 60 percent of all mobile customers in the UK.
“Consumers need to be able to make informed choices about the services they buy and policy makers need to be able to make informed decisions about the policy and regulatory framework they set,” said Antony Walker, Chief Executive of the Broadband Stakeholder Group, which represents the UK’s larger ISPs. “This new commitment provides an essential building block for getting both of these things right.”
Many ISPs already offer information about their traffic management policies, but the new code of practice means that these details will have to be provided in a universal format, so that consumers can make easy comparisons. The companies involved hope the code will help customers understand why they need to vary connection speeds.
However, critics warn that varying the speed of access could lead to the creation of a two-tier Internet, where some content providers will be able to pay the ISP for faster access to their sites.
In November 2010, Culture Minister Ed Vaizey appeared to shun the principle of net neutrality when he said that Internet service providers should be allowed to prioritise traffic from certain content providers. He suggested that ISPs could charge heavy bandwidth users such as Google and Skype for “fast lane” access, bringing in additional revenue streams and helping pay for the expansion of online services.
However, the proposals were met with fierce criticism from political opponents and certain members of the industry. Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, said the plans would “reduce innovation and reduce people’s ability to exercise their freedom of speech,” while the BBC’s Erik Huggers said the scheme would give ISPs an unprecedented amount of control over the accessibility of information and services on the web.
Vaizey later backtracked on his comments, claiming that an open Internet was his “first and overriding priority”. However, he stood by his suggestion that ISPs should be allowed to “innovate and experiment with different business models.”
The Broadband Stakeholder Group’s new code of practice includes provision for ISPs to explore managed services: “offering a guaranteed quality of service for specified content, services or applications.”
However, it does not pass any judgement on whether traffic management is a good thing or a bad thing.
“If those services do start to emerge, it is really important that both consumers and policy makers are aware of it so that any policy or regulatory framework is based on clear evidence about what is happening in reality rather than just speculation or conjecture about what might happen,” Walker told BBC News.
Fourth quarter results beat Wall Street expectations, as overall sales rise 6 percent, but EU…
Hate speech non-profit that defeated Elon Musk's lawsuit, warns X's Community Notes is failing to…
Good luck. Russia demands Google pay a fine worth more than the world's total GDP,…
Google Cloud signs up Spotify, Paramount Global as early customers of its first ARM-based cloud…
Facebook parent Meta warns of 'significant acceleration' in expenditures on AI infrastructure as revenue, profits…
Microsoft says Azure cloud revenues up 33 percent for September quarter as capital expenditures surge…
View Comments
The debate between net neutrality and tiered access is hinged on the issue that tiered access is going to impact pure net neutrality. But at the same time, consumers and businesses alike must recognise that some content is harder to transport than others. Services such as streamed video are incredibly bandwidth-hungry and can negatively impact service and speed, meaning that browsing, email and messaging, which are much lighter and also generate revenues, are slower to access.
The industry will have to find a way on the network to deal with this and ensure quality of service to consumers and businesses throughout the UK, however, as it is currently in a dangerous deadlock with no clear way forward. The demand for capacity-hungry content is growing rapidly, while the lack of transparency around service provider “throttling” practices is leading to mistrust. The status quo means staring down the barrel of an enforced regulatory gun.
Before assessing the scope of a voluntary code, it’s important to understand the main drivers for non-neutral internet. These include service improvement for time-dependent services; differentiation of services by providers; finding new revenue streams; and the funding for further structural infrastructure in core network needed by explosion of video will all be factors.
We are in the inextricable situation that not all content is created equal – whether due to revenue-generating potential, time sensitivity or consumer popularity –the voluntary code needs to balance ISP commercial prospects with consumer choice and fair play.
Ultimately, the alternative to a voluntary code of practice is Ofcom regulation. This will only end up stifling competition, innovation and consumer choice, since only the ISP mega brands will have the resources and finances to adapt. Also, it would set a precedent for internet regulation, which will lead down a more complex, more regulated path.
Frederic Huet, MD Greenwich Consulting