BT Content Connect May Impact Net Neutrality 138
a Flatbed Darkly writes "BT's Content Connect, a service which many have accused of threatening net neutrality, has apparently launched, although it is unknown whether or not any ISPs have bought or are planning to buy it yet; BT has denied the allegations, from Open Rights Group among others, that this, despite certainly being an anti-competitive service, does not create a two-tier internet. From the article: '"Contrary to recent reports in the media, BT's Content Connect service will not create a two-tier internet, but will simply offer service providers the option of differentiating their broadband offering through enhanced content delivery," a BT spokeswoman said.'"
Welcome to new-speak (Score:5, Insightful)
She denies that their service creates a two-tier internet, then goes on to describe their service which, is to create a two-tier internet. Nice.
Re:differentiating = not neutral (Score:3, Insightful)
In UK terms, back-haul refers to the connection from the ADSL provider's kit in the exchange ( central office ) back to the ISP's network through the ADSL provider's POPs. This is distinct from the ISP's connection to the Internet ( Level 3 in your example ).
ISPs which rent ADSL services wholesale from BT Group generally use BT's back-haul but there are various back-haul options ( big players being BE, Easynet and C&W ).
This BT service delivers content from the POPs, so that the ISP's backhaul is not loaded with streaming media.
Re:two tiers (Score:2, Insightful)
No, they do it by putting mirror nodes in local exchanges, freeing redundant, duplicated transmissions. Not stealing, releasing.
For the network ignorant (Score:1, Insightful)
Please excuse what is probably a fairly ignorant question, I'm not too clued in about networking.
A quick look about the BT website in the summary brings up a page supposedly explaining how it works: what they seem to be saying is that they take "Connect Content" and put it on its own server which is physically closer to wherever you are. Then, instead of having to connect to a server, say, 3,000 miles away via choc-a-bloc networks for that video, you're connecting to one maybe one or two hundred miles away with fewer users, saving you a lot of routing and time in exchange for a fee.
My question is, how exactly is that related to net neutrality? I generally thought NN was more about the possibility of an ISP throttling or even completely blocking data from someone they don't like if you don't pay up. To me this seems to be more like the "premium download server" different hosting websites seem to have where if you pay more you can jump the queue to faster hardware with fewer users. What are the differences in principle between this and paying a fee for your own home server and hosting the video there instead of streaming it from [media website here] every time? Or has the BT PR department tactfully left something out of their explanation?
Re:Welcome to new-speak (Score:4, Insightful)
Um, did you read up and understand what this is all about? Or am I misunderstanding completely what BT is offering? Seems to me BT is simply offering to cache content on their own network to eliminate a lot of network hops, and reduce latency.
Can someone tell me how an ISP offering to cache media content, for a price, violates net neutrality or somehow manages to create a two-tier internet? Is Netflix _not_ allowed to pay BT to keep a copy of their movies available just for BT customers? Is BT _not_ allowed to cache high usage content that gets repeated hits from their users? I absolutely, positively don't see why anyone is making a big deal of this. Caching servers have been around for ages, and this seems to be just the next logical step. Are caching proxies now verboten?
We've *never* had net neutrality (Score:2, Insightful)
The ISPs have always had a market where more money == faster service, we are also used to the idea of paywalls where some stuff is free and other stuff needs money to get access to. So where, exactly, does this idea that everyone should get access to everything for the same price come from? Would it still be "net neutral" if Facebook suddenly started charging $10 / year for "membership"? Is that really any different from your ISP saying "If you want to get access to service X, it'll cost you more money"? The only difference seems to me to be who does the charging - one organisation and that's business (or monetising), a different organisation and people bleat on about net neutrality.