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

OldCoals said:
The chances are websites like this would not get preference over the big advertisers essentially placing it in the slow lane.
Click to expand...

Less of a big deal on a website like this that isn't so content or traffic heavy. Much more of an issue with streaming video, etc, hence why Youtube and the BBC are cited in the article.

However, you are right - it could be that all traffic would be throttled by default, with decent performance on certain sites being an "optional extra".
 
vonhelmet said:
Less of a big deal on a website like this that isn't so content or traffic heavy. Much more of an issue with streaming video, etc, hence why Youtube and the BBC are cited in the article.

However, you are right - it could be that all traffic would be throttled by default, with decent performance on certain sites being an "optional extra".
Click to expand...

I agree, I used OcUK as an example that lots would relate too.
 
vonhelmet said:
"Say, that's a popular website you've got there. You wouldn't want any packets to go missing, would you?"
Click to expand...

It will turn the Internet into a bastardised version of cable TV. You pay for these "packages" and get YouTube, iPlayer or whatever and everybody else (I.e the small guys) get screwed because they can't pay the fees for bandwidth.

It is the most stupid yet dangerous thing ever to happen to the Internet and it is only there because the media cartels do not want the disintermediation of the Internet.

So much for independent media like video podcasts (TWIT.tv for example), podcasts, screencasts if this happens.

However I will be able to watch XFactor or Eastenders. :rolleyes:
 
Argument put forward:
We need consumers to pay more for access to services, upgrades and for the future of the network!

Reality:
Any additional price rises will be pocketed, we'll still have the same network but pay more for it. Oh and have a worse service.

No ta, we see through you Mr Vaizey.
 
Seems as though we will go back to the days of "walled garden" content... Pay more, and you can go through the gate.

I doubt this would be used to offer ultra cheap internet access either, just a way for those ISP's who moan about traffic from some websites to charge more.
 
Yamahahahahaha said:
Argument put forward:
We need consumers to pay more for access to services, upgrades and for the future of the network!

Reality:
Any additional price rises will be pocketed, we'll still have the same network but pay more for it. Oh and have a worse service.

No ta, we see through you Mr Vaizey.
Click to expand...

And then they'll pay for meagre upgrades through that silly broadband tax.
 
Surely ISPs should be free to charge what they want, for the service they provide, as long as they are crystal clear what their policy regarding net neutrality/traffic shaping actually is and make it publicly available?

The market will quickly deal with bad traffic shaping policies, while also ensuring that low and middle level bandwidth users do not have to subsidise the very high ones?
 
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/...h-pricing-for-bet-products.html#news_comments

The figures suggested for a 'Fully Fibre' Britain is around £25 - £30 billion.

The UK has around 18 million broadband connections.

Either we pay £166 per broadband connection per year for 10 years (£3 billion budget for 10 years), or a not-for-profit body is set up to establish an open fibre network providing Fibre to every property in the UK.

I'd rather not give any more money to the incumbant firms, since they are always reluctant to do anything outside of metropolitan areas.

Dolph said:
The market will quickly deal with bad traffic shaping policies, while also ensuring that low and middle level bandwidth users do not have to subsidise the very high ones?
Click to expand...
Except most people don't change ISPs, and the customers that do are very price sensitive.
It would be fine if 'pay as you go' were an option - buying 100GB of transfer per month etc. but the arrangements on the ISP / NSP side of things don't allow for this kind of flexibility. It would solve most of the problems over night if it did.
 
Last edited:
Dolph said:
Surely ISPs should be free to charge what they want, for the service they provide, as long as they are crystal clear what their policy regarding net neutrality/traffic shaping actually is and make it publicly available?

The market will quickly deal with bad traffic shaping policies, while also ensuring that low and middle level bandwidth users do not have to subsidise the very high ones?
Click to expand...

If only it worked like that in reality, as opposed to a cartel of ISP's analogous to the American health insurance system.
 
Yamahahahahaha said:
Except most people don't change ISPs, and the customers that do are very price sensitive.
It would be fine if 'pay as you go' were an option - buying 100GB of transfer per month etc. but the arrangements on the ISP / NSP side of things don't allow for this kind of flexibility. It would solve most of the problems over night if it did.
Click to expand...

But what you have identified is customer failure, not market failure.

Should everyone have to pay more because of the cares of a minority?
 
Personally I'd rather have a completely unlimited 4Mb service than a crippled 20-50Mb service.... Wish the companies would realise that...

Either way I have to put up with a 4Mb crippled service and I live only 1km from a exchange...:(
 
Customer failure in the sense that most people don't understand their needs, yes.
Market failure in the sense that they are unable (although these days, unwilling) to offer end users Pay As You Go on their bandwidth consumption.

It's the same as the debate for Water Meters - All you can eat vs. Pay As You Go.
 
scorza said:
Is the customer not a pretty important part of the market? If the customer doesn't behave rationally then the free market doesn't work.
Click to expand...

The customer does behave rationally, just because you don't agree with their decision doesn't make them irrational.

In the example given by Yamahahahahaha, the customer rationally decides that problem x isn't worth the hassle of changing ISPs, that's a perfectly rational choice even if it isn't the same one we would make in the same situation.
 
Dolph said:
Surely ISPs should be free to charge what they want, for the service they provide, as long as they are crystal clear what their policy regarding net neutrality/traffic shaping actually is and make it publicly available?

The market will quickly deal with bad traffic shaping policies, while also ensuring that low and middle level bandwidth users do not have to subsidise the very high ones?
Click to expand...

I suppose that depends on how you regard the backend of the Internet, and whether it should be unfettered infrastructure or subject to free market intervention.

Given that this is all prompted by media cartels, I'm not sure how that fits into the free market ideals.
 
Dolph said:
The market will quickly deal with bad traffic shaping policies, while also ensuring that low and middle level bandwidth users do not have to subsidise the very high ones?
Click to expand...

No it won't - because 95% of customers do not understand the technology services they purchase from ISP's.
 
[TW]Fox;17810217 said:
No it won't - because 95% of customers do not understand the technology services they purchase from ISP's.
Click to expand...

And those catering to the 5% who are savvy will charge hilariously high prices for their super-duper ultra-freedom go anywhere Internet access, which is barely as good as what we have now.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom