UK ISPs EE, Virgin and Vodafone Back Net Neutrality

Amanda Parker (3946253) writes EE, Virgin Media and Vodafone have thrown their support behind net neutrality by signing up to the Open Internet Code. Launched in 2012 by the Broadband Stakeholder Group (BSG), the UK code commits the three internet service providers (ISPs) to provide full internet access with no data blocked "on the basis of commercial rivalry." Content providers can now lodge a complaint with the BSG if they feel their services are being discriminated against. This latest development means that all major ISPs providing fixed and mobile networks are signed up to the code. BSG CEO Matthew Evans said: "Unlike some countries, where net neutrality has become a controversial topic for discussion, the UK benefits from a fiercely competitive market and high levels of transparency — which together offer the best assurance of an open internet."

Comments

mutual disarmament?

[Trepidity]

In the UK case these ISPs mostly also run other media services: Virgin Media is a big media conglomerate that owns a bunch of TV channels, and Vodafone and EE both sell streaming-television services. A blocking/QoS war could be damaging to all of them, if they start preferring their own services and degrading other companies' services, so it might make business sense to just mutually agree not to do that.

Re:mutual disarmament?

[Richard_at_work]

The Code of Practice doesn't require them to treat their own services the same as external services... Its all niceties and lip service, the code doesn't actually commit them to treating Netflix the same as their inhouse service.

Re:mutual disarmament?

[Anonymous Coward]

This post is completely wrong. Vodafone and EE don't have any TV service at all. Virgin are a cable company with their own network and their TV service is not available on other ISPs.

Re:mutual disarmament?

[Trepidity]

Until recently they didn't. EE launched a service a few months ago, and Vodafone is launching one this quarter.

Re:mutual disarmament?

[MrL0G1C]

When I was with Virgin Media they had the worst throttling, I'd literally see my 10M connections upload speed drop to dial-up speed. They still have crap download/upload ratios and the mandatory line rental is a complete ripoff.

So two things:
Censor = block, these companies will happily block political / controversial sites even by default (O2).
Not blocking is not just the problem if they are going to degrade the connection severely like VM do/did.

Re:mutual disarmament?

[Cederic]

I have Virgin Media broadband, I don't have any line rental and I see my 150Mbps connection drop to around 80Mbps occasionally at peak.

You bought the wrong service.

Re:mutual disarmament?

[MrL0G1C]

They charge £16.50 a month for NOT having a phone line, how does that make any sense?

http://store.virginmedia.com/b...

Virgin Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

Aka Virgin "Throttle you back to dial-up speeds" Media, Virgin "The ASA have us on speed-dial" Media, or Virgin "What is infrastructure investment" Media

I'll believe this is more than lip-service when I see it.

Re:Virgin Media?

[TheRaven64]

Virgin "Throttle you back to dial-up speeds" Media

No, Virgin 'throttle you to 25% for a few hours when you go over the caps' Media. On their cheapest plan, 25% is still fast enough to stream iPlayer HD and the maximum amount that you can download within the caps is several TBs/month, so it's not really something I've felt the need to worry about.

Virgin "What is infrastructure investment" Media

It's probably the thing that they've done to allow them to bump the speeds that they offer every few years. I was an early adopter for their 1Mb/s and 10Mb/s services and stayed on 10Mb/s as it moved from their most expensive tier to the cheapest. It then moved to 30Mb/s and is now I think 50Mb/s (might be 60Mb/s, not sure).

Re:Virgin Media?

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure you can stream as much Iplayers as you want, however I've seen enough 1000ms+ pings to know what useless service looks like.

As for infrastructure, they had everything they needed in place to sell you 300mbps 9 years ago when DOCSIS 3 was formalized, they are only interested in keeping their headline speed one notch above BT et al and they can't support the bandwidth they've already sold. The backhaul hasn't seen any major work with the possible exception of DPI boxes, they don'd do network build-out (or even in-fill) and their DNS servers have been in the process of falling over for several years.

And then there's the "superhub" which probably holds a record for shortest wi-fi link to require line-of-sight.

Re:Virgin Media?

[TheRaven64]

I've seen enough 1000ms+ pings to know what useless service looks like.

Pings to where? I've never seen pings over 100ms to machines in the UK, and even ones above 50ms usually indicate problems at the far end. 20-30ms (including a wireless hop at my end) is about normal.

And it was very close to becoming a mess.

[Anonymous Coward]

Our networks were very close to becoming the mess that sadly happened in America and Canada.

BT were horribly abusive back in the 90s before they got slapped on the wrist so hard the company literally split.
And really, despite BTs initial annoyance and refusal to comply, they ended up benefiting hugely from it anyway. (even though I still despise them as a company)

Still a shame they don't tell the government and City of London to piss off with their stupid copyright war. I say copyright, it is a war on forcing people in to a narrow passage. It is a war against decency. It is a war against fairness.
Then you have completely reasonable and decent people like Claire Perry trying to push nanny filters because she is too scared to tell her kids about the birds and the bees.
God forbid they see their own sexual organs. They'll have hell to pay for that. Those poor kids.

Re:And it was very close to becoming a mess.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Then you have completely reasonable and decent people like Claire Perry trying to push nanny filters because she is too scared to tell her kids about the birds and the bees.

Don't worry, now she's moved on from promoting on-line censorship to being a junior transport minister who tells rail commuters they're paying fair fares for comfortable commutes (while herself mostly driving into London to work and getting there by train just twice in the previous year).

I will never understand how someone so apparently disconnected from the reality that normal people face can actually manage to get elected, but whatever the reason, it seems a sad indictment of our "representative" democracy.

Re:And it was very close to becoming a mess.

[TheRaven64]

I will never understand how someone so apparently disconnected from the reality that normal people face can actually manage to get elected, but whatever the reason, it seems a sad indictment of our "representative" democracy.

The problem is that we don't vote nationally for cabinet posts. Someone may be a perfectly competent local MP, in touch with local issues and understanding their constituents' interests, but have absolutely no idea about whatever department they're put in charge of.

Re:And it was very close to becoming a mess.

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

The problem is that we don't vote nationally for cabinet posts.

That is certainly part of the problem, yes. In fact, by my count, we are currently at least three level removed from choosing the ministers who nevertheless wield executive power within the government: at the last general election we elected our local MPs directly, but their parties then engaged in horse-trading based on share of parliamentary seats (not popular vote) to decide who would form the government, the winning party leaders became PM and DPM, and they are the ones who in practice allocate ministerial positions.

I face a related dilemma at the next general election: our local MP is one of the few who does seem to understand technology issues like the net neutrality we're discussing, as well as small businesses and other things that matter to professional geeks, and who does actually act on relevant issues in parliament to the extent that he can. Unfortunately, he's a Lib Dem, so a vote for him is also a vote for Clegg, Cable, and other people I have little respect for after their abysmal performance as part of the current coalition administration. On the other hand, it's not a vote for the leaders of any of the other parties likely to have a candidate in my constituency at the next general election, all of whom have actually managed to disappoint me even more so far this year.

Who do I vote for if I just want a competent, technologically aware, politically moderate government? :-)

Link to full code

[Richard_at_work]

As the FA and Summery are both completely lacking in details, here is the full Open Internet Code of Practice these guys signed up to:

http://www.broadbanduk.org/wp-...

The code already has the following ISPs as signatories:

BE, BT, BSkyB, KCOM, giffgaff, O2, Plusnet, TalkTalk, Tesco Mobile, Three

Re:Link to full code

[Richard_at_work]

Note that the Open Internet Code of Practice doesn't stop companies from offering internet access with caps while excluding their own video on demand services from those caps (Sky, TalkTalk, BE, BT etc all do this) so non-affiliated services are still in-equal.

On Sky Broadland Lite, I can use Skys On Demand service all day long with out exceeding my 2GB cap, but a few shows or a movie on Netflix would probably kill me for the month.

Re:Link to full code

[Xest]

I guess the code is a complete whitewash to avoid legislation on the issue then?

The reason I say this is that I have a line with PlusNet and they most definitely do not support net neutrality. Service throttling is a stated part of what they do:

http://www.plus.net/support/br...

Whatever this code is, it clearly doesn't do what it claims to. If an ISP is intentionally slowing down certain traffic (and charging you more to have lower priority traffic increased on your line as PlusNet does - £5 for their "pro addon" which increases priority of deprioritised traffic) then this is most definitely not net neutrality whatever they say.

Re:Link to full code

[houghi]

On Sky Broadland Lite, I can use Skys On Demand service all day long with out exceeding my 2GB cap, but a few shows or a movie on Netflix would probably kill me for the month.

I don't think Net Neutrality means what you think it means.

Re:Link to full code

[Richard_at_work]

Slashdots common complaint is that Verizon or Comcast can force Netflix out of the market by including them in caps while excluding their own streaming service. And that is often raised on network neutrality topics.

So Slashdot seems to think the two are related closely.

Re:Link to full code

[Dragonslicer]

On Sky Broadland Lite, I can use Skys On Demand service all day long with out exceeding my 2GB cap, but a few shows or a movie on Netflix would probably kill me for the month.

I don't think Net Neutrality means what you think it means.

No, someone here does get it right for a change. Net Neutrality is supposed to be about not treating data differently based on source/destination. Having the ISP's other services not count towards a monthly cap is definitely a violation of that idea.

Re:Link to full code

[scottme]

From the Plusnet page you linked:

Rate limits
We do not apply rate limits to any of our current residential or business products

Re:Link to full code

[Xest]

Sure, but it's clear they deprioritise some services and that you have to pay more to have them prioritised on their otherwise oversubscribed service which is exactly the thing net neutrality is designed to stop.

Yes, already doubled capacity

[Anonymous Coward]

Network capacity doubled by gee see hache kiuh (tm) tech !

And it's FREE !

AAISP

[auric_dude]

Although not directly related to net neutrality I feel that A&A http://www.aa.net.uk/ should be commended for their stance against the filtering and censoring of content http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadb... as requested by some.

Re:AAISP

[jamlam]

+1 for A&A, I particularly like the option on account signup to choose between Censored and Uncensored Internet Access. If you pick censored it advises you to try another ISP :) There's also a great bit of text that counters the "without filtering how do we control bad guys on the internet" argument... "We do not have, in our network, any equipment installed to filter access to any part of the public Internet for our customers as a whole. We will give 12 months notice if we ever add any such filtering. This claim relates to the passing or normal unicast IPv4 and IPv6 packets to and from the public Internet based on the appropriate standards and RFCs. This means packets can be dropped because a link is full or there is a technical fault, or because they are malformed in some way, or clearly spoofed or incorrect source addresses. In the case of some sort of attack we can take steps to manage that. Only packets actually addressed to your IP addresses will get to you, and similarly only packets from you that are from your IP addresses will get to the Internet (BCP38). We don't control the rest of the Internet and so cannot bypass corporate or national firewalls or filtering outside of our network. However, we aim to deal with peers and carriers that have similarly open policies where possible. An unfiltered service does not give you any right to do anything wrong or illegal, and we can, of course suspend your service for breach of our AUP or non payment. You can run your own firewall or restrictions on your own network or ask us to set up such firewalls for you. Parents are advised to supervise their children's use of the Internet and consider parental controls as appropriate. We do this because censorship is a bad idea. Even a small amount of censorship for a good cause is the thin end of the wedge and ultimately leads to restriction of free speech. Bear in mind that we may have to restructure your contract for service to be with another company or other legal mechanisms to avoid censorship or monitoring orders."

Re:AAISP

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't get FTTC through A&A in my area when I moved in, so had to switch to BT Infinity temporarily. Now it's in, though, I'm moving as soon as the contract is up. A&A offer, by far, the best experience I've ever had with an ISP.

Re:AAISP

[TheRaven64]

They ought to for that price. Their FTTC price (plus the BT line rental) is almost three times what I pay Virgin for about the same speed, and AA's caps are lower.

Providers can relax, still plenty of wiggle room

[Anonymous Coward]

The pledge says

  users should be able to access all legal content
  there should be no discrimination against content providers on the basis of commercial
rivalry; and
  traffic management policies should be clear and transparent.

For the Comcast/Netflix story, the issue is not managing the bandwidth you have, but rather choosing when to add bandwidth (peer) in a manner contrary to your customer's wishes. This agreement is silent as to if clear and transparent traffic management even touches the peering.

It's nice, but either a much more draconian set of rules, or thriving competition among ISP's would be necessary to sort out the Comcast/Netflix issue.

Kneejerk reaction

[necro81]

If the ISPs and telecoms are for it, then I'm against it.

Down with Net Neutrality! Damn them all to hell!

Wait, what were we talking about?

Re:Kneejerk reaction

[Opportunist]

Well, I didn't knee-jerk that quickly but I did stop and ponder: Why?

I don't know if it's sad or just odd that whenever some corporation does something that benefits a customer I stop and start to wonder and ponder what they are plotting...

Re:Kneejerk reaction

[orlanz]

You are not far off. I bet the primary reason they are doing this is because if they don't, regulations will force them to and those regulations will go too far in removing any flexibilities they would want. Not to mention it will cost them more. By kind of meeting 30% of the way there, they take the wind out of the sales of the opposition. Proper self-regulation is always preferred, but you do lose a lot of ground in the debate.

Psh

[Anonymous Coward]

Like the UK ISPs know anything about an open Internet.

Or is their definition of an open Internet an Internet with sites still blocked?

You can ignore EE's comments

[Builder]

BT are looking to buy them. If that happens, it'll be as bad as every other BT outfit.

Which one?

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's be clear. There are TWO kinds of Net neutrality. First is the kind we all know and love, which is simply the idea that the Internet has been working just fine the way it was for years, so leave it alone. The second form is Obama's and the FCC's plan to seize control of the Internet, declaring internet access a public utility, which really results in government ownership and control.

We will not tolerate it.

I own the lines, I pay the electricity, the equipment, the bandwidth, the software, etc. etc. And we own the Internet as a whole; We will never recognize government authority over it. and many people will activly fight them.