Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Minister Backs 'Two-Speed' Internet

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the end-of-an-era dept.

Darkon writes "UK Culture minister Ed Vaizey has backed a 'two-speed internet', letting service providers charge content makers and customers for 'fast lane' access. It paves the way for an end to 'net neutrality' — with heavy bandwidth users like Google and the BBC likely to face a bill for the pipes they use."

10 of 226 comments (clear)

  1. Open Rights Group Have Responded by MHDK · · Score: 5, Informative

    http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2010/open-internet-enhances-our-freedom-of-speech/

  2. dangburn newfangled hippies by arkane1234 · · Score: 5, Informative

    I can hear it now, almost a throwback to the 60's...
    "dangburn newfangled hippies with their free love, free net, free information! Every redblooded {American|Brit} knows you get what you pay for! Can't have vagrants just lolligagging around on the net! The pricetag filters out the hoodlums!"

    --
    -- This space for lease, low setup fee, inquire within!
  3. Confused. by Usefull+Idiot · · Score: 5, Informative

    Google and the BBC already pay for the "pipes" they use, and end users pay for the "pipes" they use, where is someone not getting paid in this?

    1. Re:Confused. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem is that the poor ISPs are only getting paid by everyone involved once.

  4. BBC and Virgin Media by Inda · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me get this right:

    The BBC, who I have to pay by law, will have to pay Virgin Media, my ISP, who I already pay.

    My money is going to who for what exactly?

    --
    This post contains benzene, nitrosamines, formaldehyde and hydrogen cyanide.
  5. Re:how will they do this? by durrr · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Oh no, it makes sense to intentionally cripple the presumably cheaper lower tier products when they have a nice and shiny, and more expensive, high tier product to offer when you get fed up, nevermind that the actual cost for the provider is the same, raional thought and logic have never been a problem for a good business plan.
    As for packet inspection, a perfect oppotunity to implement it widely, just wait until they decide to put noninspectable packages in the not-moving-at-all-lane-until-key-provided.

  6. Re:Consensus? by lmoelleb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    And that is how we ended up with the FTP over VOIP protocol.

    --
    /Lars
  7. Re:Newspeak by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Actually, they don't. Google has peering agreements in a lot of places, so they pay nothing for bandwidth. Peering agreements exist because both parties benefit from the connectivity. I suspect that an ISP that tried to present Google with a bill would be told 'we're not going to pay, we're happy to simply blackhole your network. Have fun explaining to your users why they can't send mail or IMs to gmail users, can't browse YouTube and can't search the web with Google.'

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  8. Re:Excellent by Vernes · · Score: 5, Funny

    No, son. It was a plaything of Politics. Goverments, Music industries, Extremists. Everybody threatened us with sanctions on what we did with the Internet. There even was a time we would stand to loose it completely as its usefulness was crippled. Internet's usefulness is directly connected to the amount of people using it. And who would use it if the risks got to high? We almost lost it all. Now shut up and finish your introduction game so Google can generate a personalized profile for you. You don't want to receive Viagra ads do you?

  9. Re:Newspeak by Culture20 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    peering agreement == barter == paying with bandwidth