Leading ISPs happy to drop net neutrality

by Simon Aughton on September 29, 2010

The UK’s two biggest ISPs have revealed that they are prepared to give priority to certain internet apps or services if companies were to pay them to do so.

Speaking at a Westminster eForum on net neutrality, senior executives from BT and TalkTalk said they would be happy to put selected apps into the fast lane, at the expense of their rivals, PC Pro reports.

Asked specifically if TalkTalk would afford more bandwidth to YouTube than the BBC’s iPlayer if Google was prepared to pay, the company’s executive director of strategy and regulation, Andrew Heaney, argued it would be “perfectly normal business practice to discriminate between them”.

“We would do a deal and look at YouTube and look at the BBC, and decide,” he added.

When asked the same question, BT’s director of group industry policy, Simon Milner, replied: “We absolutely could see a situation when content or app providers may want to pay BT for quality of service above best efforts,” although he added BT had never received such an approach.

The ISPs’ stance was tacitly backed by regulator Ofcom, which has just completed a consultation on net neutrality. “We see real economic benefit for a two-sided market to emerge, especially for markets such as IPTV,” said Alex Blowers, international director of Ofcom, though he insisted ISPs must be transparent with customers about such arrangements.

Ofcom’s consumer representatives were less enamoured with the prospect of ISPs giving some services preferential treatment.

“Public services could be positively discriminated against, especially if they’re high bandwidth,” said Anna Bradley, chair of the Communications Consumer Panel. “It may be that we need to consider some sort of ‘must carry’ obligation,” for public-funded services such as the iPlayer and Government-run sites, Bradley added.

Barry Collins [photo: Crossed wires by Howard Lake; some rights reserved]

For more breaking news and reviews, subscribe to MacUser magazine. We'll give you three issues for £1
  • Artstu

    Net neutrality should be preserved at all costs. I’m disgusted that Ofcom would potentially allow access to the net to be skewed in favour of the highest bidder, which will inevitably be the larger corporations. Everyone should have free and equal access.

  • Marten3

    Of course “ISPs are happy to drop net neutrality”, why wouldn’t they be? Business is all about the money and to hell with any other concerns. It is Ofcom’s job to regulate the market in the interests of all concerned, and that includes the consumers. Their insistence on “transparency” (informing consumers in small-print legal-speak that they are being screwed) just isn’t good enough. Net neutrality is clearly the common good and should be strongly defended. Rupert Murdoch is not God.

  • Nijinsky

    At the moment, domestic broadband subscribers are offered a tiered service and can choose (depending on resources) whether to pay more for a faster connection. I suppose the same model is just being scaled up for the top end of the business. As long as enough bandwidth is left over for the rest of us we probably won’t notice the difference. I don’t see this as a neutrality issue anyway – net censorship, such as occurs in China and elsewhere is a greater affront to neutrality and democracy.

  • ARI_boy

    I’m surprised at Ofcom’s stance in this. I’d have hoped for a more neutral point of view for what is effectively a regulatory body.

  • sdwood1

    I have to ask, why exactly should “Everyone … have free and equal access” to the Internet? Unless money is falling from the sky (just checked, nope) then someone has to pay for the large and growing capital investment that is the Internet, plus a few blokes’ pay to actually operate the beast. Why do you think you, or anyone, should have free access to this valuable resource?
    There are many things more necessary to our daily lives than the Internet (food, electricity, petrol and more) and everyone does not have free and equal access, nor should they, in my view.
    If you want a larger meal, a roomier vehicle, or a bigger home, I suggest you expect to pay more than someone content with the smaller version. Why should access to the Internet be different?

Previous post:

Next post:

>