BT Content Connect May Impact Net Neutrality

a Flatbed Darkly writes "BT's Content Connect, a service which many have accused of threatening net neutrality, has apparently launched, although it is unknown whether or not any ISPs have bought or are planning to buy it yet; BT has denied the allegations, from Open Rights Group among others, that this, despite certainly being an anti-competitive service, does not create a two-tier internet. From the article: '"Contrary to recent reports in the media, BT's Content Connect service will not create a two-tier internet, but will simply offer service providers the option of differentiating their broadband offering through enhanced content delivery," a BT spokeswoman said.'"

Comments

Welcome to new-speak

[Libertarian001]

She denies that their service creates a two-tier internet, then goes on to describe their service which, is to create a two-tier internet. Nice.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[Pojut]

Marco: "Commissar. I have rehabilitated another group of the party's enemies."
Murphy: "Ha haaaa! Yeah! What does rehabilitated mean again?"
Marco: "Beaten the asses of."
Murphy: "I LOVE new-speak!" ....
Murphy: "Now, if you'll excuse me, we need to rehabilitate Phil...in the face."

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[dangitman]

She denies that their service creates a two-tier internet, then goes on to describe their service which, is to create a two-tier internet. Nice.

Your problem is that you're mistakenly thinking of them as "tiers." That's not the case. It's more like two different levels of service.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[Anonymous Coward]

Your problem is that you're mistakenly thinking of them as "tiers." That's not the case. It's more like two different levels of service.

Lucky bastards. My ISP doesn't even give one level of service.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[Fembot]

Far more worryingly than a CDN in the exchange which people might *gasp* be expected to pay for, the page promoting it http://www.contentconnect.bt.com/ Seems to include clips of "Elephants Dream" which is CC-BY licensed without any attribution anywhere that I can see.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[MoonBuggy]

If you click the 'More' tab, there's a note which reads "This website uses OpenSource video content. (c) copyright 2006, Blender Foundation / Netherlands Media Art Institute / www.elephantsdream.org". BT do tend to be hypocritical asshats, but they appear to be following the terms of the license in this case.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[a Flatbed Darkly]

This wouldn't be a BT first; the Home Hub, their free router, used to rather egregiously violate the GPL. MoonBuggy does appear to be right, though, it'd be an interesting debate to have over whether concealed attribution constitutes attribution.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[thoromyr]

Is it a two-tier Internet, or is it a glorified video-caching service? How is this different from Akamai?

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[AHuxley]

BT has rolled out a new set of pneumatic tubes. One set if you pay will let your messages move around the UK with delightful burst of Steve Ballmer's "Obsession For BT" - dedicated BT only optical path.
If you dont pay you can wait for the converted "Bring out your dead" cart to be filled and get pushed along a dirt track. -kept to the shared, oversubscribed best effort networks.
BT should have spent more on backhaul.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[mwvdlee]

CC-BY license requires attribution according to how the rights-holder specifies; it's not specified by the CC-BY license terms itself.
Without knowing how the copyright owner wants it to be specified, you can't know whether a specific method of attribution is in compliance.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[ThreeGigs]

Um, did you read up and understand what this is all about? Or am I misunderstanding completely what BT is offering? Seems to me BT is simply offering to cache content on their own network to eliminate a lot of network hops, and reduce latency.

Can someone tell me how an ISP offering to cache media content, for a price, violates net neutrality or somehow manages to create a two-tier internet? Is Netflix _not_ allowed to pay BT to keep a copy of their movies available just for BT customers? Is BT _not_ allowed to cache high usage content that gets repeated hits from their users? I absolutely, positively don't see why anyone is making a big deal of this. Caching servers have been around for ages, and this seems to be just the next logical step. Are caching proxies now verboten?

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[MoonBuggy]

Just to clarify after re-reading my post: even if the service is similar to that provided by Akamai, there's a significant conflict of interest when that service is provided by an ISP. They have the power and the motive to simply throttle all connections except those who pay to be part of the 'upgraded' service - a protection racket, basically. Akamai and the like never had the power to do this, so it wasn't an issue.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[SuricouRaven]

A CDN in the exchange, from a technological prespective, could be a very good idea. The question is over the long-term business implications. A CDN, after all, is worthless if the un-CDNed best-effort service is good enough. Running the CDN gives BT an incentive to delay upgrading, lest they reduce the demand for the higher tier.

It's just good business sense on any tiered business. Don't make the cheap product too good, otherwise you cut into demand for the expensive product.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[TheRaven64]

The difference is that, one one level, there is you. On a higher tier, making a 'whoosh' noise as it passes' is the joke.

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[Mordok-DestroyerOfWo]

The chin...it isn't jutting enough

Re:Welcome to new-speak

[julesh]

She denies that their service creates a two-tier internet, then goes on to describe their service which, is to create a two-tier internet. Nice.

No, no. You misunderstand what she said. The service doesn't create a two tier internet. No, the service allows their *customers* to create two-tier internet.

Those customers will presumably include BT Openworld, who are a separate company and not even slightly connected to BT Wholesale, honest guv.

two tiers

[snookerhog]

"differentiating their broadband offering through enhanced content delivery" Certainly sounds like two tiers to me...

Re:two tiers

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they do it by putting mirror nodes in local exchanges, freeing redundant, duplicated transmissions. Not stealing, releasing.

What a polite euphemism

[elrous0]

Contrary to recent reports in the media, BT's Content Connect service will not create a two-tier internet, but will simply offer service providers the option of differentiating their broadband offering through enhanced content delivery

I ran that through babelfish and got the translation: "Fuck you! We'll do whatever we want and you can't do a thing about it."

Re:What a polite euphemism

[TaoPhoenix]

I set my copy of Babelfish to Simpsons and got Nelson's "Ha Ha!"

differentiating = not neutral

[digitaldc]

By definition, differentiating negates net neutrality

Do they think people are so stupid that they can just use big words to lie to people? Oh wait...

Re:differentiating = not neutral

[elrous0]

Don't be silly. Some services will just be a little less neutral than others.

Re:differentiating = not neutral

[bluefoxlucid]

What is Content Connect

The Content Connect product is designed to enable Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to deliver video content within the UK to their customers more cost effectively than it has been possible to do previously. This is achieved by connecting a Content Distribution & Delivery platform to the IPstream Connect and Wholesale Broadband Connect networks. The Content Distribution & Delivery platform will be placed in the broadband network so that content by-passes the ISPs backhaul. Content Connect gives the opportunity for the ISPs to have a commercial relationship with the Content Service Providers (CSPs).

The Content Connect Basic product is for the CSP market

The Content Connect Standard and Premium service is available to ISPs who have a commercial relationship with CSPs.

Content Connect Key Benefits

End Users benefit from the new Content Connect product:

TV video entertainment will be delivered to the home through a broadband line with the option of an enhanced experience including HD internet video on TV.

ISPs benefit from the new Content Connect product:

Brings ISPs into the content value chain and allows them to earn revenue from delivering internet video from CSPs .

CSPs benefit from the new Content Connect product:

CSPs can have their content delivered at a higher quality of service.

For further information please contact your Account Manager

I think I like this. It basically says hey, ISPs pay for back-haul bandwidth (i.e. Level 3 plugs into Qwest, NetFlix is on Level 3's side, Qwest lets you access NetFlix, Qwest pays for the ASSLOADS of bandwidth they ring up across their link to Level 3's network), so now ISPs have the option of entering a deal with NetFlix to coordinate between NetFlix, Qwest, and technical consultant BT to get NetFlix's data on Qwest's side of the fence. NetFlix doesn't move; it just puts a back-end link or a copy of their data (data warehouse) over in Qwest's playground so they can avoid pulling it down through Level 3, which is slower and more expensive.

If Qwest wants to pay Level 3 for bandwidth, they can pay Level 3. If Qwest wants to pay NetFlix to maintain content locally on the Qwest network, they can pay NetFlix. Anyone who isn't a Tier-1 provider will be paying an assload (for example, I think Comcast is a Level 3 customer, and their network is all on Level 3's back-end rather than just connected to it), and would similarly benefit both financially and performance-wise by dropping a NetFlix box in their network.

As long as they can't charge NetFlix for being on the other side of the fence and thus costing them money every time their users watch a movie, this is fine. If NetFlix wants to charge them to have hardware installed and maintained on their network, that's great; if not, too bad, you can't just shut NetFlix off because you don't like what your users are doing to your bandwidth bill.

Re:differentiating = not neutral

[Anonymous Coward]

In UK terms, back-haul refers to the connection from the ADSL provider's kit in the exchange ( central office ) back to the ISP's network through the ADSL provider's POPs. This is distinct from the ISP's connection to the Internet ( Level 3 in your example ).

ISPs which rent ADSL services wholesale from BT Group generally use BT's back-haul but there are various back-haul options ( big players being BE, Easynet and C&W ).

This BT service delivers content from the POPs, so that the ISP's backhaul is not loaded with streaming media.

Re:BT Content?

[Rik Sweeney]

Just in case you aren't being silly, BT (in this case) is short for British Telecom.

akamai

[hey]

Sounds like Akamai

Re:akamai

[natehoy]

I think this is basically an Akamai-like caching server. And I can see where the controversy lies.

If BT implements this and doesn't intentionally throttle other services, I don't see this as a violation of neutrality - BT is not discriminating against anyone in using the Internet pipe, they are simply maintaining a cache service for those who want to cough up a little more dough for their web sites to be stored in a local cache. BP customers can still access anything they want on the Internet at Internet speeds, but certain things run at local speed which is faster.

However, I can see how this could be easily abused, if BT started speeding up the Internet packets (*) coming from their customers who paid for the caching service and slowing down everyone else's, or started blocking or throttling sites that refused to pay for it, or lowered their overall Internet connection to the point where only cached sites were useful.

I can also see how this could be interpreted as a "two tier" system, but such systems have been in use for quite some years in the US and have been very successful here. They do make some web pages faster than others, but I haven't seen many reports of ISPs intentionally throttling their regular Internet bandwidth to punish service providers who don't pay up. I've heard of ISPs who try to force high-bandwidth content providers to subscribe, and that's wrong, but that's a matter of abusing the technology, not a problem inherent to the technology.

Frankly, I don't understand why an ISP wouldn't want to simply start caching all static content. But, unfortunately, that means that most content they really want to cache is not going to be. Streaming video from someone like NetFlix is encrypted so the movie you watch is a different set of bits from the same exact movie your neighbor watches 5 minutes later. BitTorrent is not only comprised of a great deal of illegal content that the ISPs don't want in their cache servers, it's also frequently encrypted, and the BitTorrent protocol is going to tend to prefer "local" clients so it's already optimized to save backbone usage when possible anyway.

YouTube would be brilliant for this sort of thing, and YouTube actually uses Akamai if I recall correctly.

(*) By "Internet packets", I'm referring to caching customers who might only cache static content. This is how my company uses Akamai - we give Akamai a copy of all of our static content (ie. pictures of our product), they replicate it out to all of their edge servers around the world as needed, and we simply use an Akamai URL to access the image on the web site. Akamai automatically determines the closest server to the customer and serves them up the replacement image. All encrypted and dynamic content is directly between the customer and our web servers.

Re:akamai

[KingMotley]

That is very short sighted.

It will DEFINATELY become abused because then either everyone needs to start paying, or the service will get so bad that it will become unusable. For example netflix which has PLENTY of outgoing bandwidth, and I which have nearly 10 times the bandwidth to receive a movie can't watch it because it gets bottlenecked by the connection between my ISP and netflix. My ISP won't upgrade their connection, and instead starts to suggest that netflix buy a caching server on their network to fix it for a (small?) fee. Netflix then either needs to raise their prices to everyone to pass on the additional cost, or directly charge those on my ISP the additional cost. Rinse repeat for every semi-bandwidth hungry website on the planet, and now the ISP is getting paid by everyone AND me. Try starting up a website then, when in order for your "customers" to actually get to your website and have a decent experience you now need to negotiate with every ISP on the planet to pay them an added "speed" fee, or have them host a caching server on their network.

Re:akamai

[dgatwood]

If BT implements this and doesn't intentionally throttle other services,

You can stop right there. If BT's pipes were not already massively oversold to the point of pure comedy, they would not be trying to move companies like YouTube to caching servers in the first place. Therefore, the current state of affairs is essentially that they are massively throttling everyone's services. In short, if they implement this, they'd be violating the principles of net neutrality from day one.

That's the problem. As soon as they implement this, assuming YouTube buys in (or is granted free access as a "special" customer), much of the public will stop screaming about the inadequate bandwidth, but it will still be a problem, which means that from then on, any service that wants to compete with YouTube will be forced to pay their protection fee or will not be able to serve content adequately to BT customers. In effect, it is just masking the problem so that customers don't scream without fixing the real problem---that BT's pipes are way too small.

Re:akamai

[natehoy]

I think you may have missed my point, or I made it poorly (which is likely). Let me try again.

The issue at hand is network neutrality.

A caching service like this can easily benefit both the ISP and the customer by reducing unnecessary bandwidth, as long as it isn't abused. The gist of the article is that "caching servers bad", and I disagree. I agree that caching servers can be abused, but let's not throw the baby out with the bathwater here.

So in the network neutrality discussion, do we want to say that:

1. Caching should be off-limits forever and completely (as the article implies).

2. Caching should be available absolutely for free to all content providers who ask, at no charge and regardless of how much content the provider wants cached (forcing BT to basically cache the entire Internet if they choose to cache anything at all, and some things like NetFlix and encrypted data are un-cache-able without the content provider's cooperation and assistance).

3. Caching and charging for it is allowed but ISPs must maintain sufficient bandwidth to support non-cached activities as well, with the only difference in speed being the obvious speed boost you achieve by caching something locally.

I maintain that option #3 is the most logical choice. It maintains network neutrality while giving ISPs the opportunity to manage their network traffic.

Otherwise, BT's going to have to put in a shitload of backbone upgrades in order to accommodate every one of their customers doing streaming bandwidth 24/7 from anywhere on the planet. If they have to do that, your rates are going up.

I'm not saying they should be able to hold a high-bandwidth service hostage, but they might find it in their best interests to give that service a really good deal on caching services and prevent some of those upgrade costs they'll pass on to you.

A lot of ISP's have an Akamai presence. I'm frankly surprised that BT wants to even bother "rolling their own" when there are already third parties ready to do this for them. However, intelligent caching is good for everyone, and it does require a level of content provider cooperation (so the content provider can clearly identify what is cache-able and what is dynamic).

BT's infrastructure monopoly

[a Flatbed Darkly]

I don't have the exact statistics, so I may be wrong - feel free to downvote if you disprove this - but I've rarely seen anyone not on a BT line, until the '60s the company which was previously BT had a complete (government-instated) monopoly of telecom infrastructure, and it is known that BT still owns the majority of lines. A lot of TSPs won't give service over anything but BT lines, and I've seen a few ISPs do similarly. If this is being offered to all ISPs on BT's network, as the BBC article claims, then this is being offered to near enough every ISP in Britain.

Re:BT's infrastructure monopoly

[MoonBuggy]

I believe you're slightly misinformed. There are three broad "classes" of internet connection in Britain: Firstly, there's cable, provided by Virgin Media - phone, TV and net traffic all go over their fibre/copper, so BT's services don't apply there. I couldn't find a figure for how many subscribers they have, but they are a very large company so I'd imagine the number is not insignificant.

Secondly, there's BT Wholesale. This uses BT's infrastructure, linked to BT equipment at the local exchange, and resold to consumers via retail ISPs (including BT's own retail division). These retail ISPs are the ones covered by Content Connect. Five years ago this covered almost all users in Britain, and even now BT Wholesale products have many millions of users, but their reach is declining.

The final category is LLU, or 'Local Loop Unbundled' services. These are the ones that require a BT line (in order to connect you to the local exchange), but then hook that line into the ISPs own equipment when it gets there. Ofcom forced BT to accommodate the LLU equipment in their exchanges. This entirely bypasses BT Wholesale (so no Content Connect), meaning that the retail ISP takes home more of the profit, which is why it's becoming more popular with the big ISPs who can afford to install their own DSL hardware at a decent number of exchanges. Services from Sky, TalkTalk, Be, and others use LLU equipment where available but fall back to a BT Wholesale product for those users connected to exchanges where their equipment has not been installed.

BT stands for British Communications PLC

[torrija]

BT needs disambiguation: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT

Acronyms can be confusing, so please explain them before using the acronym.

Re:BT stands for British Communications PLC

[Mazca]

Yeah, I was worried that the Babylonian Talmud was conspiring against net neutrality again.

This is your run of the mill CDN

[slashdotmsiriv]

Similar to those deployed by Akamai and Limelight for their customers, and by Google and Microsoft for themselves.

A typical case of a Telco moving into an additional market.
Arguably, it does allow BT to offer multi-tier services. But it is not packet-level differentiation
in the network, which is the issue at the heart of the net-neutrality debate.

If Content Distribution Networks violate net neutrality and the /. crowd thinks so, then
we should be blasting Akamai and Google long time before we started blasting the Telcos.

Re:This is your run of the mill CDN

[MoonBuggy]

I'd say it's a CDN with a significant conflict of interest. There's nothing to stop BT from throttling content from providers who don't pay to be included, for instance - in fact, there's a decent business incentive pushing them to do exactly that - it rapidly changes from an upgrade to 'protection money', a problem that did not exist with non-ISP CDNs.

Re:BT Content?

[zakeria]

Yeah and I read this as Bi-Tier

Re:We've *never* had net neutrality

[MoonBuggy]

You're paying the ISP for the transfer of bits. Those bits are identical (aside from certain peering and QoS issues) whether they are from Facebook, YouTube or Slashdot - if ISPs start charging for identical bits based purely on their origin, it allows them to extort money from all content providers by simply threatening to slow down or block their traffic if they don't pay up.

If you started paying Facebook a fee, that would be for the services provided by Facebook, not for the data transferred from their server to your computer. It's an apples to oranges comparison.

Re:Australia already have a kind of tiered interne

[Aphrika]

The situation is the same here in the UK too; extortionate data charges and use policies, but all you can eat data for YouTube and Facebook.

I find the YouTube deal particularly annoying, simply because whenever I went over my data limits, it was normally for email and browsing, and certainly not streamed video. So based on the effect that streamed video is going to put a much bigger strain on a mobile network than web and email, I can only assume that backroom deals have been done, and hence a multi-tiered internet is beginning to appear.