Ed Vaizey - (Communications Minister) Against net neutrality and is for ISP traffic favouring

Soldato
Joined
20 Apr 2004
Posts
4,388
Location
Oxford
And charge us for it. :eek:

Sounds like a horrid Idea for the consumer personally, sure theres traffic prioritization now but sounds like he want to take it way beyond that. Made me think of this abit "All Bytes are equal, but some Bytes are more equal than others."

You guys have any thoughts ?

source
 
Conservative minister favouring big business over the principles of equality and fairness shocker! He probably went to school with the CEOs of BT, TalkTalk and Virgin Media.
 
I don't see the problem. Pay more, get more?

If all thing were fare then sure, but its far more likely it be use for profiteering first rather than providing the customer i.e us with a better service. For example I still be on the same 4mb crappy connection only now they charge me more for gaming and BBC iplayer traffic. One of the reasons why i was FOR the 50p line tax was that money was going to be used to fix/upgrade out much ageing network.
 
Last edited:
If all thing were fare then sure, but its far more likely it be for profiteering first rather than providing the customer i.e us with a better service.

Why would they be providing us with a better service?

Did you mean providing those paying more with a better service?
 
I don't see the problem. Pay more, get more?

Virgin charge their customers for access. The BBC pays their ISP, whoever that may be, for access. Virgin should not charge their customers more for preferential access to the BBC. That matter should be resolved in the peering arrangement between Virgin and the BBC's ISP. If that means Virgin pay the BBC's ISP more for a better peering arrangement, then so be it, and they are free to pass those costs on to their customers. There should not, however, be a two tier (or worse) system implemented through QoS as it is one step away from racketeering. "Say, that's a popular website you've got there. You wouldn't want any packets to go missing, would you?"

There, that's about 500 slashdot discussions distilled into 4 lines.
 
I don't see the problem. Pay more, get more?

How on earth can you not see the problem. They are going to make people pay more for packages that will pretty much always be worse than what we get at the moment.

ISPs have had it good for so long and now that they have people using the bandwidth they pay for, the ISPs are kicking up fuss. For years people have had good connections for a reasonable price but they never used more than 10% of the speed they had available.

Since iplayer, youtube etc started becoming very popular they have started throttling your speed. How can you justify that?

Guys, you all have 100mb broadband but if you use more than a light user we are going to throttle you. In fact you can have whatever speed broadband you want for £2 a month as long as you dont download more than 10gb.

I dont mind if they want to charge more per month for a service that does what it says on the tin. If people need faster connections or the ISPs need to reinforce their infrastructure then I dont mind paying a bit more but to remove net neutrality is stupid.

Hopefully if this happens, there will be one company that doesnt create a multi tier system and everyone leaves the other companies and they lose lots of money.
 
"Say, that's a popular website you've got there. You wouldn't want any packets to go missing, would you?"

Indeed, abandoning net neutrality will be a disaster for technology innovation in this country - something the Prime Minister promised to encourage, and indeed has identified East London as a place he hopes will be the next Silicon Valley.
 
In a free market an ISP will see an easy way of picking up customers by providing better, cheaper home broadband.

If this means you have mainstream ISPs pandering to big business and small ISPs selling to home users, is there much difference? Sure you might have to switch ISP, but this isn't such a big deal.
 
In a free market an ISP will see an easy way of picking up customers by providing better, cheaper home broadband.

If this means you have mainstream ISPs pandering to big business and small ISPs selling to home users, is there much difference? Sure you might have to switch ISP, but this isn't such a big deal.

It's nothing to do with big business vs home users. We already have tons of ISPs that cater to different sizes of customers. It's to do with the ISPs saying "Pay £5 more per month and Youtube will be usable".
 
Back
Top Bottom