In a speech this week, Ed Vaizey, minister for Culture, Communications, and Creative Industries, set out the government’s vision on ‘Net Neutrality’. He outlined three principles: openness, transparency and freedom to invest and innovate. Thinkbroadband takes a closer look at the prospect of a two-tier internet.
These sound like admirable principles, but what is unclear is where the balance between them lies when they conflict?
Mr Vaizey did acknowledge that there was no agreement on what was meant by the term ‘net neutrality’ which often means different things to different people, but his speech was interpreted as giving a green light to Internet Service Providers, to explore alternative business models, hinting at the possibility of content providers being asked to pay for delivering services to users on an ISP’s network. However it should be stressed there is nothing to stop them from doing so already.
Following an outcry by various groups, the minister clarified that the government was committed to an open Internet.
We support the minister’s principles in general, but in a world where consumers struggle to understand the meaning of ‘up to’ which prefix the speeds on most broadband packages, we are concerned that trying to explain traffic shaping to the average consumer will be quite challenging. Can consumers make an informed choice?
Why does it matter if the consumer can change ISP?
Two of the more commonly quoted content providers in this debate have been the BBC and Google, both of which may fear that service providers could ask them to contribute to the costs of running broadband networks as some of their video streaming applications in particular, can account for a significant part of their bandwidth utilisation. However, given the popularity of those sites, no large scale service provider would wish to significantly restrict traffic to either of these companies, as there would be a risk consumers would switch suppliers.
The danger however, is that service providers would ask smaller content operators or start-ups which have not yet sustained such a large following, to pay for access to their networks. This move could potentially discourage innovation and put control of the Internet in the hands of established players, seeking to put up barriers for new entrants. Just consider a video version of music service ‘Spotify’ as an example. The cost of abandoning the principles of net neutrality will raise costs for small businesses, reducing consumer choice.
The only way to ensure consumers are aware of performance issues caused by traffic shaping, is for some kind of ‘live’ display which informs them in real-time when their traffic is being shaped, via a gadget on their computer or an app on their games console.
The problem already exists
Already many service providers manage or ‘shape’ their traffic—this is done to ensure that applications which are sensitive to variations in speed and quality like Internet telephony are prioritised over others which are not greatly affected by small delays such as downloading software updates. However most of this tends to be based on the type of traffic (video, download, etc.) rather than its source or destination (YouTube, BBC, and so on).
ISPs already operate a variety of business models—some providers allow their Internet connections to run ‘hot’ or congested, in order to be able to deliver a lower cost service. There is nothing inherently wrong in doing this, provided consumers are aware of what they are buying. When they start to discriminate by source/destination, it can become difficult to identify who is at fault.
Indeed, the reverse situation is also sometimes the case; some content producers outsource their distribution to companies which operate on networks which will only interconnect free of charge with larger network operators. This means smaller service providers may already be paying for content which their larger competitors receive at no cost.
What does transparency mean?
Regardless of who levies the charge, any increase in costs will be paid by the consumer. The issue arises primarily because service providers are keen to advertise the fastest possible headline speed at the lowest price, bundled with the ‘unlimited’ label to attract consumers to their service. This often means to provide the most attractive deal, ISPs will allow their network to congest, or manage traffic during peak times.
Consumers then make a decision about what content to consume online. The cost of delivering video content to a mobile phone using today’s technology, can be significantly more expensive than to a fixed broadband line, however the best entity to charge for this is the mobile phone company who will inevitably have a billing relationship with the consumer, whereas the BBC or Google may well not. Consumers also need to understand that there is a cost associated with access, and ‘unlimited’ deals don’t scale with current technology at least.
The internet as liberator
The freedom offered by the Internet to spread ideas has challenged big corporations who fail to adapt to online competition. By building a two-tier Internet, there is a risk we will be putting up barriers to new companies presenting such challenges in the future. It’s far cheaper to start a business online than it is to open a shop on the high street—A two-tier Internet risks reversing that situation.
The new digital divide
There is also a danger that we will see a new digital divide, with the most disadvantaged being left on restricted tariffs with limited access whilst those who can afford to pay more, receiving an unmanaged service. When we see more educational content going online, and potentially being available free around the globe, there are potential consequences of not providing fair access to such content for everyone.
Conclusions
We strongly support the minister’s call for transparency, innovation and openness, but we believe additional discussion is necessary to determine how these conflicting principles can be balanced to protect consumers.
Source: www.thinkbroadband.com
Thinkbroadband.com is the UK’s leading independent broadband information site which has helped users with broadband problems for over 10 years. It started in the days when broadband services were bring trialled and its staff thus have some of the most comprehensive experience in this area.
Consumers can refer to this impartial website for independent advice and details on the services offered by Broadband Service Providers, enabling them to make an informed decision as to who to use as a supplier as well as troubleshoot problems they may be having.
