ISP's Support Two-Tiered Internet

[#1]

Just read this news article on the BBC about the ongoing debate about having a two-tired internet, and I wondered what Plusnet's thoughts on the situaton were.
Are PN likely to start charging extra for "speedier" services, and banning some services altogether? This paragraph in particular bugged me:

Quote

Net neutrality - the principle that all net traffic should be treated equally - has been challenged in recent years as ISPs look to make a return on their increasingly expensive networks.

Erm, we pay for it. That's how you make some returns on your "expensive networks". Another thing that annoyed me was this:

Quote

BT even said that if people want to block things they should be able to.

In my opinion, any company that owns the majority of something that the entire country relies on day in, day out (such as the telephone and internet infrastructure of a whole country) shouldn't be allowed to use their position as a monopolist to restrict innovation and freedom simply to make money, or make their lives easier.
So yes, what are PN views on the situation of a two-tiered internet?
jim:green link fixed mod:end

[#2]

looks like BT are after more money    and to provide better connections for only them who can pay more, and make the vast majority lose out , so it will end up like Sky tv a lack of free to view pages .
net should stay neutral ! 

[#3]

Quote from: Dom

Quote Net neutrality - the principle that all net traffic should be treated equally - has been challenged in recent years as ISPs look to make a return on their increasingly expensive networks. Erm, we pay for it. That's how you make some returns on your "expensive networks". Another thing that annoyed me was this:

I think the point they were trying to make (badly) was more around that if you download a shed load every day, that costs the ISP more than you pay them each month.  That gets balanced off with people who don't use the net much, but that is starting to disappear as loads of people start learning about streaming etc.  Quite a few blog posts about that stuff on the main community site blog though.
TBH, I think the whole Net Neutrality bit broken right now in the UK.  Many ISPs control, or in a blunt way, throttle  p2p traffic because it will swap the network work and impact the quality of time senstive applications.  Therefore, how can it be neutral?

[#4]

Im not sure about that.
Sure and ISP has to right to restrict my access based on what I pay for and what I don't.  But it should be provider neutral.
What is being talked about is giving certain companies preference on ISP networks, not certain traffic types, but certain companies, I am totally against this, and if Plusnet were to start offering certain companies traffic preference over other companies (or peoples) then I would be off to an ISP that doesn't do that.

[#5]

The problem or benefits with this will be the likes of Facebook, iPlayer maybe faster for certain users with certain ISP's, but on the downside, it might just be if they don't get the money from a particular site, that site will either be very slow or unavailable to users, you will find some ISP's will start advertising in certain categories for Skype / Social Networking, general shopping etc, others will be P2P, streaming, Audio / Visual etc. Very similar to what AOL did with their portal a few years ago.
What may make a difference is when the treble x adult domain comes in, and adult sites are moved across and if certain ISP's disallow an opt in to adult sites, that might free up huge amounts of traffic on certain ISP's, however, it will only reduce the load slightly, if not just shift it elsewhere on the network, but may make it a lot faster for the vast majority of users.
It might bring it better traffic shaping though, as much as I dislike it, if used properly, it could work and be of benefit, I think it unfortunate that for most, traffic shaping doesn't work, and causes more problems.
The other problem is, the profits made go to shareholders, and aren't invested back into what is needed most, bandwidth and faster / more reliable infrastructure! Everyone wants to make more money, but spend less of it.
Does mean though that the Internet will be tiered, and maybe for the better, will depend on which ISP you're with at the end of it all.
Will have to see if we all survive the budget this week! 

[#6]

Quote from: fourfourdevon

Im not sure about that. Sure and ISP has to right to restrict my access based on what I pay for and what I don't.  But it should be provider neutral. What is being talked about is giving certain companies preference on ISP networks, not certain traffic types, but certain companies, I am totally against this, and if Plusnet were to start offering certain companies traffic preference over other companies (or peoples) then I would be off to an ISP that doesn't do that.

But what if provider X starts to supply their video product which streams in an aggressive way which needs controlling in comparison to provider Y's less aggressive video product?

[#7]

As I said, restriction by traffic type.  i.e. restrict the aggressive traffic, NOT the organisation responsible for it, that way you get others (perhaps smaller providers) doing the same thing, and if and when the organisation responsible decides to reform and be less aggressive then they will automatically be unrestricted.

[#8]

That could well be all the organisations traffic entirely though.  I guess my points is that the two go hand in hand. 
"Net neutrality - the principle that all net traffic should be treated equally"

[#9]

I doubt it would be all their traffic, but even if it is, it is the type of traffic you are restricting, not the organisation.
Its the same as restricting HGV to main roads and banning them from rural villages, as opposed to banning Eddie Stobart.
One is about social justice/care/call it what you will, the other even if it starts as the former, ends as discrimination.  The former effects everyone and is circumvented by all in the same way, the former affects only 1 organisation and that organisation has no way around it.
I believe you misunderstand a fundamental tenant of "Net Neutrality", which is its about equality of access, so that I, Time Warner, AOL, BBC, whoever all get the same access, regardless of who we are.  It's not about ISP's carrying traffic that they cannot afford to, or forcing them carry all traffic types.  i.e. in net neutrality terms it would be fine for Plusnet to block all Usenet traffic, but it would not be OK for Plusnet to block just one (or a specific collection of) company.
If however, one company has developed a way to deliver its traffic that Plusnet find egregious, again, block that TYPE of traffic, not the organisation.

[#10]

I'm recounting an argument I've had with some net neutrality advocates, rather than my own interpretation of it.  

[#11]

The way I've read the argument is that certain companies take up the majority of bandwidth, so ISP's naturally would like these companies to pay them transit fees.  If these companies don't play ball then traffic from these companies would be set at a lower profile and so slow down.  Companies which do pay on the other hand are put on a higher profile so are a bit faster.  Other websites which use normal traffic are kept on a normal profile and so are about the same.
You'd have sites like Youtube, iPlayer, iTunes, Megavideo and whatnot listed as "major users of bandwidth" so would be asked to cough up some cash to the ISP's who are providing them lots of bandwidth for their products or services.  If an ISP does downgrade a service, customers would either find another ISP (unlikely if all ISP's did this) or find a service which isn't on a lower profile.

[#12]

Quote from: David

The way I've read the argument is that certain companies take up the majority of bandwidth, so ISP's naturally would like these companies to pay them transit fees.

Huh! certain sites and services make up the majority of the bandwidth. There is no doubt about that. So surely those comapnies are paying their hosting provider (and CDN service) the fees needed for them to supply data at 10Gb/s or whatever the rate is they need to supply their users.
Now the people with a problem, are those users, who want all the internet they can eat for the least money ... so it is the consumers who are no willing to pay for the connection reliability which is needed to be sure the ISP has enough connections at LINX/Level3 to provide that bandwidth. Those connections are not cheap/free.
So Yes, if users want to be sure there is neutrality, they need to pay for it.
Of course ISP's dont want to mention this to the users, so they are trying to say it is all the fault of Google/iPlayer, etc.

[#13]

Quote from: godsell4

So Yes, if users want to be sure there is neutrality, they need to pay for it.

I agree, as I said in a previous post, my ISP is perfectly within their rights to restrict MY service based on what I do and do not pay for.  I just don't want them allowing Time Warner to say pick up part of the tab so that their traffic is prioritised. Not because I don't want a free lunch, but because there is no suck thing as a free lunch, if Time Warner pay for better access on Plusnets network, that means new, perhaps innovative, but small pocketed services are at a disadvantage, and the great leveller promised in the internet vanishes as it becomes a conduit to market only for the big boys with big pockets.
No thanks.
* Made several spelling and grammar corrections

[#14]

Yes. I'm (reasonably) happy with traffic management as applied by Plusnet openly & with rather less openness by others. I would like more flexibility to chose my own priorities (remember the brief flirtation with 'Broadband my Way'?) & I'm happy to pay more or less money to get the service I want.
That puts the control with the user, where it belongs. I'm not at all happy with the idea of being delivered a service where the quality is being determined by the depth of pocket of those who want to push stuff at me.