UK gov't promises to allow telcos to hold Brits hostage on "two-speed" Internet

So much for any hope that a Conservative-LibDem coalition would signal a beginning to sane network/information policy in Britain. Ed Vaizey, the new Minister of Culture, has given the go-ahead for a "two-speed," non-neutral Internet, in which your capacity to access a website or service would depend on whether that service had bribed your ISP.

In this model, ISPs could slow down traffic from the sites you love if they don't pay for "premium access" to you -- essentially turning you into a hostage that gets traded around like a prisoner being swapped for a couple packs of cigarettes.

So, Vaizey, what next? I can call any takeaway restaurant I want, but unless they've given a backhander to my phone company, I'll have to wait an extra 30 seconds to be connected, while an announcement offers to put me through to a competitor who's paid the "premium" danegeld?

What kind of self-respecting Tory -- theoretically a staunch free marketer -- would allow pure rent-seeking from a common carrier, to the detriment of the whole population?

He says: "We have got to continue to encourage the market to innovate and experiment with different business models and ways of providing consumers with what they want.
"This could include the evolution of a two-sided market where consumers and content providers could choose to pay for differing levels of quality of service."
He also suggests that content makers could be charged for the first time for the use of the ISP's networks - provided they too were clear about what they were getting.
"Content and application providers should be able to know exactly what level of service they are getting especially if they are paying for it," he says.

Minister Ed Vaizey backs 'two-speed' internet

I write books. My latest is a YA science fiction novel called Homeland (it's the sequel to Little Brother). More books: Rapture of the Nerds (a novel, with Charlie Stross); With a Little Help (short stories); and The Great Big Beautiful Tomorrow (novella and nonfic). I speak all over the place and I tweet and tumble, too.

MORE: Action • Business • Technology

More at Boing Boing

The technology that links taxonomy and Star Trek

Hackers prepare for first "national holiday" in their honor

Anonymous

And yet again today, evil spreads like rancid coffee poured out onto the cold asphalt.

Blaze
Anonymous

Yes, please tell me how those of us who pine for the open internet of 1998 can build our own. I really want to be part of that enterprise.
- technogeek
  
  “Open internet of 1998″? Endless September is usually dated from 1993.
  
  I remember the days when academic systems would respond to logon attempts from unknown users with “You don’t have an account. Would you like to create one?” — on the assumption that anyone clueful enough to get to the Arpanet in the first place was sufficiently intelligent and respectful to not make a mess.
  
  Building your own network is easy enough. All it takes is time and money. Not even all that much money if you’re willing to settle for dial-in speeds. The problem is getting enough content onto that network to make it worth using, and then finding some way to get enough money from users to scale it up.
Camp Freddie

I saw this on the news last night. The tories are too stupid to realise that free markets lead to monopoly abuse. The government’s job is to ensure fair play in the market and prevent exploitation of a monopoly and/or rent-seeking.

Most people in the UK get broadband from BT or Virgin. Both BT and Virgin are in the business of providing TV. Generally this is bundled with their internet and phone line.

The biggest ‘bandwidth hog’ is internet video, so iPlayer, Youtube, Netflix, etc are the target of two-tier pricing.

Can anyone see the massive conflict of interest here? BT and Virgin just want to force everyone to get their media though their controlled channels, which massively restricts the market.

People are be generally locked into a contract that is expensive to cancel, so it’s not easy to switch broadband (especially with BT, who only provide ‘rolling’ 12 month contracts, so you can only cancel without fee if you cancel on an aniversary of signing up).

My view is that the government should treat broadband just like they treat electricity. No contracts, switch when you want, pay for what you use, not what you use it for. Prices would go up for some people in the short-term, but the level playing field means that market-innovators will find lower prices in the long-term while protecting people’s rights.

Imagine if Powergen were allowed to charge you extra for using a kettle because the 3KW spike causes them more difficulty than the prolonged 100W from the TV (a legitimate concern due to the “national cup of tea after the news/Eastenders/Corrie” effect).
hassenpfeffer

Thank you for using the word “danegeld” to remind us of the Grendels and mothers-of-Grendels that we need to go out and slaughter in these purportedly more civilized times.
Anonymous

Why is america and britain so intent on ruining the internet? And why, for that matter, are americans and britains letting them? What gives?
Anonymous

There already exists a second and much faster internet (internet2) in Canada and in the United States for use by universities, research facilities, the military and the government.

Commercial entities need not apply.

I would be quite shocked to discover that such infrastructure was not already deployed in England, Australia, New Zealand, France, Germany, Russia, China and Japan.

The remaining countries and citizens the world over are SOL.

Given the availability of porn at truly astonishing speeds to select governmental workers in the aforementioned countries, what makes you think that the governments of those aforementioned countries give a shit about their citizens’ access speed.
user23

I, too, appreciate the fancy employment of “danegeld.”

It is wrong to put temptation in the path of any nation,
â€ƒâ€ƒâ€ƒFor fear they should succumb and go astray;
So when you are requested to pay up or be molested,
â€ƒâ€ƒâ€ƒYou will find it better policy to say: –

“We never pay any-one Dane-geld,
â€ƒâ€ƒâ€ƒNo matter how trifling the cost;
For the end of that game is oppression and shame,
â€ƒâ€ƒâ€ƒAnd the nation that plays it is lost!”

Let this sad occasion mark the official beginning of the beginning of the end of Free Speech, and “affordable” prices, on the net for the UK &, next, the U.S.
squidsquid

Absolutely loathsome government we have in the UK at the moment. They would be wiped out if there was an election called this week. Not content with attempting to regress higher education opportunity by bumping up huge tuition fees, now they want to mess up the internet too?!
Anonymous

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again..
It is just moronic the attitude we Brits have to the Internet.
The politicians just don’t get it.

And things like this are never reported in the MSM so the majority of the public are oblivious too.
- Anonymous
  
  Actually it was printed in the Metro this morning … on the front page. Which actually quite suprised me.
  
  And ye, it’s a really stupid idea. I see it as more of a way to seperate content into two teirs, rather than speed.
  
  i.e. YouTube, iPlayer etc will be on one platform, and the ‘other stuff’ will be on another.
  
  Why are the government messing with the internet anyways? Leave it alone, it works just fine thanks.
  
  The reason people using streaming services are causing a ‘problem’ is because we’ve been sold broadband packages that are ficticious. You advertise 10mb but only really want to deliver 5mb. Now the whole connection and whole allowance is being used by the user… i.e. we’re getting what we’re paying for; you want more money?
  
  Fuuuuucking government.
Anonymous

Do not mess with my internet pipes, Condems.
GermiaJohnson

God… I hope this doesn’t happen here. Canadian internet is slow enough without two tiered throttling.
AnthonyC

I was under the impression that the owners of servers (who are the ones paying the ISP, I assume) already paid for a certain level of upload/download speed and bandwidth.

It sounds like they’re trying to get paid for the same service twice- from the site owner and the owner of the server hosting it- based on nothing more than the name of the site/file being transferred. That’s ridiculous, and in no way an “innovation.”
- chip
  
  “It sounds like they’re trying to get paid for the same service twice- from the site owner and the owner of the server hosting it”
  
  They’re already paid twice – Once on the server end and again on the download end. They’re actually asking to get paid a THIRD time by whoever created the bits that are being sent from the server to the downloader.
  
  This is extortion pure and simple. “Nice content you gots there. Be a real shame if something was to happen to it. Hows about you slip me a few clams and I’ll sees to it those bits of yours don’t have an ‘accident’.”
Purplecat

Given the fact we’ve also had health policy given to the fast food lobby , I think it’s clear to see that the entire country is on sale to the highest bidder.

Condemnare delenda est.
seamusmccauley

Trust the British government to come up with such a loathsome scheme – it sound eerily similar to the system whereby people who voted for them get better quality of public services.
merreborn

What kind of self-respecting Tory — theoretically a staunch free marketer — would allow pure rent-seeking from a common carrier, to the detriment of the whole population?

A completely unregulated market would allow for carriers to prioritize their traffic however they see fit, wouldn’t they?

Net neutrality is a pro-regulation, and thus, not-completely-free-market position, is it not?
hbl

Just ask the Tories how the two-tier rent system has worked out the rail network, and whether or not that has resulted in a better, more efficient and cost effective service for the end user? Has there been much innovation in the past 20 years in charging commuters way way more for much much less.
a_user

”
What kind of self-respecting Tory — theoretically a staunch free marketer — would allow pure rent-seeking from a common carrier
”

The Tories were only for free markets when they directly benefited in encouraging the transition of the political power residing in the hands of landed gentry as industrialisation swept the UK. At around the same time The Times was seen as a new force in the news sheets voicing the Tories views.

It’s entirely in keeping with their ‘politics’ that they should encourage a tiered system which encourages you to spend more to get the same service, as it’s their supporters who’ll be benefiting, the owners/investors of the infrastructure.

You see a service, they see a sizeable enterprise that can exploit its market position to maximise profits.
RikF

I tried emailing him on this this morning. I got a curt response to read the full speech, which I did, and it changed none of the issues with this idea. One thing it doesn’t address is whether or not the twin-tier will me limited only to the last mile. What if other ISPs, with which I have no direct contract, decide to go two tier for their part in the connection between source and consumer? How can that be transparent when I have no contract with them.
Bad, bad, bad idea.
technogeek

I’ve been warning folks for the past decade that if you insist on realtime traffic — streaming media, low-latency gaming, etc. — you’re no longer going to “fit in the cracks” between other users of the network and price is going to go up, either across the board or on those specific kinds of traffic.

Net neutrality means making EQUIVALENT THROUGHPUT AND LATENCY available at the same cost. If you pay less, expect to get less and more respectively. It’s true in the last mile; it’s true in the ISP’s network; it’s true on the backbone. And always has been.
Matt J

At least BT are under an obligation to allow others ISPs to put their equipment in their exchanges. There will hopefully always be ISPs who will commit to net neutrality.
star35

You have the Tories all wrong – they are not and never have been interested in the “free market” except where they could see an opportunity to cash in. They are more than happy to endorse non-market mechanisms if that worked out in their interests. The Tories are the Party of the rich and all they have ever cared about is feeding and defending the rich at the expense of ordinary people. In a matter of a few weeks since the election they have absolutely trashed this country. It’s only going to get worse, MUCH worse.
pffft

but don’t ISP’s sell different bandwidth/throughput at different prices now?

as long as they are not allowed to pick and choose speeds based on content but are only allowed to charge based on throughput/bandwidth.

in other words, as long as ISP’s must offer the same prices to everyone, regardless of content then they are being neutral, aren’t they?
odei

Just sent this email:

Dear Mr Vaizey,

I’m writing to urge you to reconsider your support for the idea of ISPs being able to control which sites and services I can view easily, and those which I can’t or may not be able to at all. I can see your logic behind the idea – something similar to paying for premium TV packages (please note that I don’t watch TV because these services don’t offer me enough control, I want to watch what I want, when I want without paying extortionate fees for the privilege). I would argue that the consumer paying for their connection, and the producer paying for their server, provide plenty of revenue for these telecom giants without pushing us deeper into a corporate-controlled world. Your responsibilities lie in the “Communications, Culture, and Creative Industries” but I don’t see how this plan will do anything but cripple and stifle these markets. The small-scale aspects of internet commerce would be crushed with the choice of extra fees versus obscurity and this flourishing innovative market would become stale, no different from our high streets which are slowly being filled by superstores of cheap, generic goods. Another problem with this concept – what makes you think it could be enforced? The government and ISPs have a terrible record of controlling the online population and have thrown so much money away trying to combat piracy and other illegitimate uses of the internet. I think this idea needs to be seriously reconsidered before any action is taken.

Thank you for your time,
Anonymous

Isn’t a government supposed to serve its people?

It’s enough to make you want to start your own internet. With blackjack. And hookers.
- a_user
  
  “Isn’t a government supposed to serve its people?”
  
  Not in the tory mindset – the tories serve their perceived peers, the rest of the democratic process is just a tiresome chore which they go along with.
Anonymous

This is against the very point of the internet. So long net neutrality!!
Anonymous

This comes from the same people who think IE6 is sustainable for the forseeable future. Idiots!
Anonymous

So we boycott the sites that pay the premium.
efergus3

Oderint Dum Metuant.
Anonymous

The government acts as though the internet was a benificense bestowed rather than the technology that won out. From 1982 to 1992 Fidonet was the most sophisticated network on the planet. Completely outside government control a network of 30,000 bedroom BBS’s that became many of the early ISPs.

In other words we had built our own network but we gave it all up for TCP/IP packet switching candy.

The network routes around censorship, try this shit and its war, we’ll freaking Phreak if you mess with the network.

PS free B.M.

Please watch Jason Scotts awesome BBS Docu part 4 Fidonet and know I speek truth
albtrssp

Are you kidding me? That is precisely “free market” – they’re saying that the ISPs are free to charge whomever they want, whatever the market will bear.

I’m not saying it’s a good thing for the consumer, but this is definitely holding to a “free market” way of thinking.
Anonymous

“What kind of self-respecting Tory — theoretically a staunch free marketer — would allow pure rent-seeking from a common carrier, to the detriment of the whole population?”

Um…a Tory, that’s what kind. The Conservative Party has always been about privilege for a chosen few. Any rhetorical gestures towards “free markets” were never more than window dressing.
Patrick Nielsen Hayden

Right, and those ISPs are in a position to set up their toll booths because they forged the Internet out of primordial plasma with their bare hands. Very free-market, that.