Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Google The Internet United Kingdom News

UK Minister Backs 'Two-Speed' Internet 226

Darkon writes "UK Culture minister Ed Vaizey has backed a 'two-speed internet', letting service providers charge content makers and customers for 'fast lane' access. It paves the way for an end to 'net neutrality' — with heavy bandwidth users like Google and the BBC likely to face a bill for the pipes they use."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Minister Backs 'Two-Speed' Internet

Comments Filter:
  • by arkane1234 ( 457605 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:31PM (#34255568) Journal

    I can hear it now, almost a throwback to the 60's...
    "dangburn newfangled hippies with their free love, free net, free information! Every redblooded {American|Brit} knows you get what you pay for! Can't have vagrants just lolligagging around on the net! The pricetag filters out the hoodlums!"

  • Confused. (Score:5, Informative)

    by Usefull Idiot ( 202445 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:32PM (#34255570)

    Google and the BBC already pay for the "pipes" they use, and end users pay for the "pipes" they use, where is someone not getting paid in this?

    • Re:Confused. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:34PM (#34255604)

      The problem is that the poor ISPs are only getting paid by everyone involved once.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Posting as an AC as I work for some of the parties involved.

        The problem is that BT Wholesale wants to bypass the ISP altogether and offer BBC and Google's content directly to the consumer, probably moving to paid content later on.

        This is a two tier internet in more sense than one. The "high speed" content does not go through the mandatory Great Firewall of Britain - the anti-paedo system. It also breaks the already completely b0rken British internet model in further and more fantastic ways to a point where

    • Obvious misleading. I guess we know where BBC stands on the issue now.

    • Re:Confused. (Score:5, Insightful)

      by rakuen ( 1230808 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:38PM (#34255674) Homepage
      Well, I'm certainly not getting paid to put up with these shenanigans.

      To be a little more serious though, ISPs have it in their head that they can get more money if they come up with a scheme to double-bill people or corporate entities. They're looking to governments to allow it, and it looks like someone high up in the UK wants to support it. Once in effect, they can make even more money that they can continue to not spend on improvements.
      • Re:Confused. (Score:4, Interesting)

        by MightyMartian ( 840721 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:03PM (#34256090) Journal

        Imagine if Google started shaping outgoing traffic based on incoming address. Boy oh boy, would we hear the gnashing of teeth and angry demands and accusations of monopolistic practices.

        Without the content, there would be no reason for consumers to buy Internet service at all.

        • by mlts ( 1038732 ) *

          Maybe Google should, and state that because of the hostile practices that $ISP does, Google is forced to delay each search for $TIME. Most users would get onto their ISP's case real fast if the daily content they access, they have to wait 30-60 seconds for like one of the filesharing sites.

          It would be good for Google. ISPs have more to lose if content providers pick up their toys and go home.

    • Ed Vaizey went on further to say "The Internet is not something that you just lump something on. It's not a big train. It's a series of pipes"

    • by _Sprocket_ ( 42527 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:03PM (#34256082)

      It has come to the good Minister's attention, via very earnest talks with telecom industry representatives, that the Internet is not a lorry. You just don't dump a movie on to the Internet without it getting mixed up with everyone's emails. And in fact, unlike when you mail a DVD, a movie on the Internet is not a single package. A movie can be many hundreds of thousands of packages. In fact, with the help of a very complex Powerpoint slide, the Honourable Minister was able to understand that merely even beginning to send a movie on the Internet requires a "three way handshake" which is, in effect, three whole messages being sent back and forth on the Internet. Meanwhile, the poor, near impoverished telecoms have been fooled in to under-charging by at least 1/3 of what they should be owed. They have attempted to make this up by charging the service provider and the user but that is only 2 of the fair 3 charges owed; and that's just this handshake. It doesn't even take account all the other packets involved. Clearly someone has made a mistake and it will take government to step in and rectify the situation. To further educate the Honourable Minister, the British Phonographic Industry attended the presentation and noted that the thousands of packets noted by the telecom industry each represents a lost sale and is largely the cause of the Spice Girls entering retirement.

    • Re:Confused. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Schadrach ( 1042952 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:31PM (#34256478)

      Your ISP isn't getting paid by Google to allow the pipe your paying for to connect to the pipe they are paying for. That's one of the big evils that Net Neutrality is specifically about preventing.

      Personally, I think there should be two categories for ISPs, and it should be up to the individual ISP which one they want to be -- either a common carrier, in which case they are not legally responsible for anything going across their lines but are forbidden from pulling this kind of shit, or a private carrier, in which case they can pull all the BS they want on the lines, but are also ultimately legally responsible for all content on their network. If you pull filtering tricks or the kind of thing in this story, then since you are filtering the content in some form, your customers and those you peer to can assume said content is legal, as you are yb your own inspection process certifying it as such.

      Now that every ISP takes the "common carrier -- I don't want sued out of existence because something illegal went across my lines" option, welcome to 'net neutrality. =p

      • by toriver ( 11308 )

        Indirectly they are: Google pays "ISP" A (rather the network companies they connect to) and the consumer pays ISP B, and then ISP A and ISP B are supposed to come together and divide the income based on that traffic.

        Apparently that latter part has fallen apart somehow, since competing ISPs either price their service so low they do not actually cover costs, or they spend it all on other things, and now try to rewrite the rules.

      • > Your ISP isn't getting paid by Google to allow the pipe you're paying for to connect to the pipe they are paying for.

        No, but the provider that pumps Google's data onto your ISP's network, is paying your ISP for that privilege by allowing your ISP to pump an equivalent amount of data onto their network. This is roughly what peering is about, and it balances those kind of network traffic accountings without resorting to too many financial transactions.

    • by bl8n8r ( 649187 )
      > where is someone not getting paid in this?

      It's not really about "not" getting paid, so much as it is about creating a way to control and capitalize on the technology; to the point it becomes useless of course with the latter being the ultimate endgame.   It's in the same boat as DRM. And the RIAA at the helm.
  • What are Slashdot's feelings on net neutrality generally? It seems as if it's something we should care about, but most here don't seem to mind.

    If nothing else, it could increase complexity in a system that should stay simply IMHO.
    • Re:Consensus? (Score:5, Informative)

      by characterZer0 ( 138196 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:36PM (#34255628)

      I think most here generally support neutrality. Some argue that ISPs should be able to prioritize traffic based on type but not destination - they could give priority to latency critical, but low bandwidth, packets like VOIP at the expense of FTP; but not give priority to their own VOIP traffic above other VOIP traffic.

      • Re:Consensus? (Score:5, Insightful)

        by lmoelleb ( 974144 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:50PM (#34255858)
        And that is how we ended up with the FTP over VOIP protocol.
      • That seems to sum up the common opinion pretty well. There's a fundamental difference between basic QoS to improve performance in general (giving low bandwidth, ping critical apps higher priority than higher bandwidth apps where ping is less important, such as VOIP and gaming vs web and bittorrent) and giving you a terrible connection to Vonage so you'll use your cable provider's VOIP system or giving you a lightning fast connection to Bing but 0.005k/s and a 3000 ping to Google because MS paid your ISP bu

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        I think most here generally support neutrality. Some argue that ISPs should be able to prioritize traffic based on type but not destination - they could give priority to latency critical, but low bandwidth, packets like VOIP at the expense of FTP; but not give priority to their own VOIP traffic above other VOIP traffic.

        The challenge with prioritization over the Internet is the trust model. If my ISP were to trust my network to mark priority levels there's nothing that prevents me from selfishly flagging all my traffic as real-time just to give myself lower-latency web browsing. So clearly the ISP won't trust anyone but themselves to mark traffic. Or maybe they trust me but only permit a certain percentage of bandwidth to be marked real-time, and charging me for that privilege depending on how big of a percentage I want. T

    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by arkane1234 ( 457605 )

      Net neutrality is something that's not even something you talk about... it's just a given, like freedom of speech.

      • Net neutrality is something that's not even something you talk about... it's just a given, like freedom of speech.

        Or a taken.


        Is it fast, or is it slow
        My cat Schrodinger knows.

      • If it's like freedom of speech then why can't we talk about it?

    • Re:Consensus? (Score:5, Insightful)

      by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:40PM (#34255704)

      What are Slashdot's feelings on net neutrality generally?

      To my mind, it makes sense to have pricing clearly defined based on the bandwidth you use. It should be no different than your electric bill where you're charged based on the power you use. Take my parents - They "do email," now and again watch youtube vids of the grandkids and surf the web a bit. Contrast this with my brother-in-law who is constantly torrenting, playing online games and using netflix. I'm somewhere in the middle. There should be a mechanism to charge us different rates based on our usage. My parents shouldn't be subsidizing my brother-in-law.

      However the ISPs don't seem to be well equipped to build this sort of system...

      • There are mechanisms to charge you different rates based on your usage - they already exist. There are various tiers for your alloted download / upload amounts - it is not as "Unlimitted" as you might think it is. If your brother in law goes over 100GB a month and isn't on fibre optic - he probably pays more than his monthly plan is set for.

        They treat it more like television currently - and I'd rather it stay like that as opposed to being charged for every bit of traffic I use. ISP's will find ways to abuse

        • If your brother in law goes over 100GB a month and isn't on fibre optic - he probably pays more than his monthly plan is set for.

          Depends on where he lives. When I had DSL I could saturate the connection the whole month (and my upload was saturated all the time) and the ISP didn't care. Now I have fiber and a much faster connection and upload way more than I could with DSL and the ISP still doesn't care.

          But yes, because if the way internet works, I'd rather pay a fixed fee and not one based on data transferred. If I paid for every MB transferred then I should not pay for the packets lost in the ISPs network for example.

      • Completely unrelated to net neutrality. Thanks for your off topic input.

        Also, ISPs don't want to do what you propose. Not because they can't... in fact it'd be easy for them to do so. But likely that would drop their profits too much. All the $60/mnth people that use their internet for e-mail would end up paying them less....much less.
    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      Net Neutrality would not be necessary if we had true choice for consumers among many companies.

      But since we instead have monopoly (like Comcast) or duopoly (Comcast/Verizon), that creates the need for the government to regulate and impose net neutrality, the same way they impose it on the Telephone monopoly.

    • "Net Neutrality" is sort of like "Free Speech" or "Free Markets." It's a laudable in theory, and constantly held high as a virtue, but in practice "Net Neutrality" in any society will eventually reach the same status as Free Speech and Free Markets: the majority of it will wind up under the control of a few, very powerful institutions (Corporations, Governments, or Collectives depending on the political environment), and those who truly want to exercise free Bandwidth/Speech/Trade will be relegated to a "p

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:33PM (#34255594)

    How is the bandwidth Google uses not being paid for now? I know that ISP's charge me money to access the internet, and I'd imagine that Google already pays whatever service provider hooks their network into the internet. What am I missing here?

    • Just like a conversation of one minute between two cell phones gets billed for 2 minutes, they'd like every byte going through their network to be billed as 2 bytes.

      • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

        by Mavakoy ( 730866 )

        Not in the UK (and presumably the rest of Europe) If someone calls/texts me, they get charged. I only pay for outgoing calls/text messages.

      • by ArhcAngel ( 247594 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:06PM (#34256116)

        That would in fact be fairer than what they are trying to do. Take comcast as a good example. They just purchased NBC. Now let's say you are a comcast customer and you want to stream an episode of Chuck and then an episode of NCIS. Chuck streams great no lag or stuttering but NCIS coughs and sputters and buffers all the way through and you just think CBS.com sucks compared to NBC.com but in fact comcast saw you were streaming a show from a competitors web site and flagged your packets with a low priority so all other traffic gets to go first. Then CBS cries foul and comcast tells them if they want their content to get delivered without interruption they'll have to pay a "protection" fee to ensure on-time delivery. Now imagine they are doing this to ABC.com, Google, Yahoo, etc., etc. If they can get this practice federally labeled legal they stand to add billions to their bottom line for relatively no extra work.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by horza ( 87255 )

          In the UK, Sky owns newspapers, TV, as well as an ISP. They recently put The Times behind a pay wall where it is dying a rapid and painful death. The logical thing for them to do would be to throttle the speed of rival newspapers to make them unreadable, leaving paying £1/day to Murdoch as the only reasonable way of getting news. They can do the same with TV, making their VoD the only usable one.


      • by arose ( 644256 )
        That already happens, website operators and people accessing the net already *both* pay for the privilege in some form. This would be charging one (or both) parties extra to connect to someone in particular.
        • Not exactly. As of now my ISP only bills me and I'd be surprised google shares the same ISP. This proposal would allow every ISP to try (cause providers could choose to be low priority and not pay) to charge twice for every byte going through.

          As of now, I'm paying my ISP for their network (my ISP pays a backbone for their network) while the service provider pays another ISP for that other part of the network (and that ISP pays a backbone for their network). So the only double payment occurs if I share the s

      • Nono. That is currently implemented.

        Person A calls Person B.

        Phone - Person A gets charged for bit xfered.
        Cellphone - Person A and B get charged for bit xfered.
        Internet - Person A and B get charged for bit xfered.
        Net neutrality fails - Person A and B get charged for bit xfered. Then person A gets charged to connect to person B instead of person C. And person B gets charged so that person A is allowed to call them.

        Seriously, it is that stupid.
        • I disagree with your statement. As I've answered to "arose" just before you, your payment to your ISP covers your ISP's part of the network and indirectly the backbone that your ISP uses. But it doesn't cover the whole network (meaning every other part of the network owned by other ISPs). So we pay more than one time per byte, but less than two actually.

  • by Inda ( 580031 ) <slash.20.inda@spamgourmet.com> on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:33PM (#34255600) Journal
    Let me get this right:

    The BBC, who I have to pay by law, will have to pay Virgin Media, my ISP, who I already pay.

    My money is going to who for what exactly?
    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward
      To the Shareholders of Virgin Media for their enrichment.
    • by tepples ( 727027 )

      The BBC, who I have to pay by law, will have to pay Virgin Media, my ISP, who I already pay.

      My money is going to who for what exactly?

      Back to you if you own shares of VMED.

  • Google pays for internet right now right?

    The major peers trade traffic with each other and the billing of that traffic usually ends up a wash.

    Google crawls the intarwebz using bandwidth, then presents search results to people also using bandwidth. I expect they have a pretty heavy bill for the pipes they use now.

    If Google doesn't want to pay for more exclusive access speeds or priority of service why would their bill go any higher than it is right now?

    Google spent a lot of cash on having distributed datacen

    • by Qzukk ( 229616 )

      so why would they bother paying for such things now?...Google might seem slower

      It might seem that way, but that's probably because of the throttling applied by your ISP. Don't worry, if you call and ask them about it, their staff in India are trained to explain how it must be a problem with Google, just like when Comcast started throttling torrents.

      If ISPs had been upgrading their bandwidth at a regular rate, then I could suspend disbelief long enough to say that they are honestly offering "more" bandwidth

    • Atm there is nothing stopping MS from paying Verizon to make Google artificially slow. Or for that matter putting ads on Google's site for Bing.

      More likely what will happen is something like two-tiered health care (and the reason it is a failure). Verizon will charge places like Google double so that they get faster access to you. Then to ensure more people pay for their faster service they will slowly degrade their regular lane until it is horribly unusable. At which point everyone will have to be paying
    • by hazem ( 472289 )

      If Google doesn't want to pay for more exclusive access speeds or priority of service why would their bill go any higher than it is right now?

      It will work like this: today's "normal" will become tomorrow's premium service, and tomorrow's "normal" will be a degraded lower priority service. If you continue to pay for "normal", your service will get worse. To maintain the service you're used to, you'll need to upgrade to a premium service.

      It will be similar to the grocery stores that offer "club" discounts.

  • Excellent (Score:3, Insightful)

    by tmosley ( 996283 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:40PM (#34255696)
    This is great. If they do that, Google can just cut those guys off from their network entirely, and they can wither and die as they should. Google has quite a bit of dark fiber. Shouldn't be too hard to finish out the rest of the network.

    Get rid of these damn telecoms with their crappy business models.
    • Re:Excellent (Score:5, Insightful)

      by FredFredrickson ( 1177871 ) * on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:49PM (#34255830) Homepage Journal
      10 years from now, I can see it. "Daddy what's the internet? Was it anything like the googlenet is today?"
      • by Vernes ( 720223 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:14PM (#34256214)
        No, son. It was a plaything of Politics. Goverments, Music industries, Extremists. Everybody threatened us with sanctions on what we did with the Internet. There even was a time we would stand to loose it completely as its usefulness was crippled. Internet's usefulness is directly connected to the amount of people using it. And who would use it if the risks got to high? We almost lost it all. Now shut up and finish your introduction game so Google can generate a personalized profile for you. You don't want to receive Viagra ads do you?
      • 10 years from now, I can see it. "Daddy what's the internet? Was it anything like the googlenet is today?"

        ... And all the googlecams in the room pivot in his direction to subtly remind him to answer carefully because people in India, China, Australia, and probably Mrs. Noseybitty down the street are all googling him right now.

    • Shouldn't be too hard to finish out the rest of the network.

      You are drastically underestimating how much it takes to run last mile to a hundred million buildings.

      • by tmosley ( 996283 )
        That is the ISP's job. We are talking about backbone networks here.
      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Shouldn't be too hard to finish out the rest of the network.

        You are drastically underestimating how much it takes to run last mile to a hundred million buildings.


  • ...surely make you lose your mind. Everything, all the time.

    The Eagles have already shown beyond a reasonable doubt that a 2-speed internet is inherently a bad idea. Let's just keep it at the same speed it is now. Shall we Mr. Culture Minister?
  • Go green! (Score:4, Funny)

    by Quiet_Desperation ( 858215 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:45PM (#34255788)

    How about a ten speed internet so you can downshift for steep hills?

  • by Voxol ( 32200 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:47PM (#34255806)

    IMO, this is about moving money to ISPs who are (in the UK) generally local companies whereas service providers are often foreign owned.

    Net neutrality should probably be a WTO issue.

    • Ah yes. That famously foreign-owned BBC, ITV and Channel 4. All of whom run free-to-Net streaming video services.

      • by Spad ( 470073 )

        The BBC is largely the problem (for the ISPs). They spent years telling everyone how awesome their hugely over-subscribed services were for streaming media and the like, then the Beeb came along with the iPlayer, everyone started using it and the ISPs were faced with two choices: Upgrade their networks to actually provide the service they sold to their users or spend almost as much money lobbying the government to force the BBC to pay them for the privilege of transporting their content over the last mile.

  • by Lord Bitman ( 95493 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:50PM (#34255860) Homepage

    I really just hope that these "bandwidth users" like google outright refuse to pay, and instead instantly cut off access from those ISPs which threaten them with such stupidity.

  • by thijsh ( 910751 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @12:54PM (#34255936) Journal
    2 speed internet mandated by law is a great idea!

    If and only if it has the following two speeds:
    - The minimum guaranteed reserved bandwidth I pay for (which is currently almost always unknown, and can change without notice)
    - The maximum burst bandwidth I pay for (which is what they currently advertise)

    Currently there are too many oversold connections with burst speeds of 20, 30, 60 or even 120 mbit being sold without any mention of the minimum reserved bandwidth, and those speeds become lower and lower when they oversubscribe the line. Consumers need to know the minimum as well as the maximum bandwidth they are paying for.

    * smartass notice: yes I know you can't guarantee an actual minimum bandwidth in practice, but I'm talking about the uplink (i.e. 100 mbit uplink shared with 50 users = 2mbit guaranteed, in contrast to the maximum advertised speed which would probably be 20mbit in this setup).
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Krneki ( 1192201 )
      Low speed 33.6k with packet lost > 50%.
      Hight speed: 56k with the same shit of packet lost.

      Price:100 - 300E.

      Since you don't have a choice what are you going to do?

      This smells like communism in the worst form.

      P.S: I don't mind communism, just the 80% of stupid monopolistic ideas.
      • by thijsh ( 910751 )
        I shamefully admit I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about...

        Perhaps there is some soviet russia joke in there about the dial-up 'broadband' speeds they used to have but it is totally going by me...
  • by tygerstripes ( 832644 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:00PM (#34256026)

    Nominally, this proposal will have no detrimental impact on any current service. Put simply, ISPs are being given the option to offer a "premium" service to those data suppliers who wish for their content to be delivered at a "premium" rate, at a premium price, thereby improving their perceived web experience.

    To the simple-minded, this is a perfectly straightforward case of adding value to a service and charging for that added value. Nobody has to pay anything extra if they don't want to. However, this doesn't address the brutal reality.

    Firstly, ISPs already saturate their bandwidth as far as they're able in order to be competitive. The creation of an express-lane for premium content will, by default, require the degrading of non-premium content delivery. Certainly the increased revenue could be used to improve infrastructure and have a net benefit on all bandwidth, but ISPs are businesses and it's fundamentally naive to assume this will be the result.

    Secondly - and more importantly - this move would change the culture of the web irrevocably. In the first instance, content providers will have to pick a camp, and we will be faced with a two-tier system. Two-tier will just be the beginning though, and companies will have to quickly start incorporating their "content deliver" streaming costs into their business strategy. Like any variable, contracted service, it will be open to competition, abuse and legal dicking-about. It will change the very nature of the web, and we will all suffer from the lack of an even field.

    A more subtle problem would be the loss of impetus to improve the efficiency of data delivery. As things stand, it is in every single person's and organisation's interest to constantly strive to improve the bandwidth-efficiency of their sites, languages, algorithms and services. As soon as the big guns find themselves able to take a short-cut to improving their users' web-experience by paying for it, half the major driving force behind these innovations in efficiency will be gone.

    I'm sure there are many other reasons to oppose this change, and I honestly can't think of any compelling reason to approve it - unless, as I said, one takes the short-sighted, uninformed (or plain greedy) stance that this would improve certain uses of the web, at least for now.

    • by devent ( 1627873 )

      Put simply, ISPs are being given the option to offer a "premium" service to those data suppliers who wish for their content to be delivered at a "premium" rate, at a premium price, thereby improving their perceived web experience.

      Are the ISPs going to build new premium lines for this service? Why can't they do it now, build a new faster line and sell it?

      If they don't going to build new lines then they have to slow down everybody else, and the ones with are paying more will have the same speed (i.e. the speed that ISPs usually selling, the maximum speed of the line).

  • by oGMo ( 379 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:12PM (#34256174)

    Seriously... we all know Google etc already pay for the uplink, power, servers, etc, and the "users" that are using bandwidth are the people requesting. Who are also paying ISPs already for what they use (the ISPs wrote the contracts!).

    Logic and reason aren't going to work here or they already would have. It's unfortunate Google has sworn off evil; they're in a unique position here to do what a less philanthropic business would have long ago: start demanding payment from ISPs, especially the big ones. Hey Comcast, want your users to have fast access to Google? You should start paying Google then. Or maybe AT&T will sign and your customers will go there, because everyone uses Google.

    Of course, this will cause politicians etc to start whining about fairness, antitrust, and how the net should be neutral to large players. Congratulations, we win. =P

  • A suggestion? (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward

    This seems interesting,

    I don't know exactly what he is proposing, but a good idea could be...

    The users pay the same amount of money and a guaranteed a minimum bandwidth... so suppose you are downloading some stuff from a random place(say xyz), you will get your minimum speed,
    now here is the catch, the big companies (say youtube), can pay extra to the isp's so that on their websites you will get more than a minimum speed that you pay for,

    so in the end, suppose i pay for a 4 mbps connection
    i get 4 mbps when i

    • by Spad ( 470073 )

      To paraphrase Morbo: "The internet does not work that way!" - either I'm paying my ISP to provide access to, say Google or Google is paying my ISP for me to access them. My ISP doesn't get to take money from me and from Google for the same thing. That's like me posting a letter with correct postage and then when it arrives at your house the postman demands you pay for the postage again or he refuses to deliver it.

  • by Culture20 ( 968837 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:16PM (#34256246)
    "bandwidth users like Google and the BBC likely to face a bill for the pipes they use"
    They already face a bill for the pipes they use. Now someone wants to make them pay a bill for the pipes end users use to get to google and bbc, even though those pipes are already payed for by the end users.
  • LOL, how backwards (Score:3, Insightful)

    by dnaumov ( 453672 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:19PM (#34256300)

    I wonder what these ISPs would think if Google, Facebook and the like would start charging THEM, for letting their users access their services?

    • by tukang ( 1209392 )
      I like this idea. espn3.com already does this
    • by toriver ( 11308 )

      Well, if the ISPs start charging the content providers (i.e. the VERY REASON people got a broadband subscription from them in the first place), watch the paywalls go up faster than frontier towns, as the content providers try to earn back the protection money that Comcast et al are asking for.

      Another approach could be that Google etc. start deducting the expenses they pay to these "extra" ISPs from the pay to their own internet connection partners so that they avoid paying twice, then those partners can go

  • I'm probably missing something, and someone will correct me hopefully, but how will a multi-tier system work with the multiple ISPs? When I access google, sometimes the traceroute will run all the way out to Europe and back to the United States to access the site. how are all the different ISPs involved going between here and there going to manage a tiered system? Will every one of them charge google a fee, or force the connection to go around when the subscription price wasn't paid? It seems to me that thi
  • by fantomas ( 94850 ) on Wednesday November 17, 2010 @01:48PM (#34256762)

    ...probably believes in a two-tier society generally, the nobility and the peasants! ;-)

    This is a man (son of Lord Vaizey) who accidentally got £2000 worth of furniture delivered to "the wrong home", [wikipedia.org] including an antique chair and paid it all back when the accounts committee found out.

  • Basically its to let the service providers be free to make internet a feudal domain, just like how the current corporate business world/economy is. Each network will be a feudal domain on which the provider will be free to decide what happens, who travels, who sees what and who cannot see what, behind the guise of charging. Dont like something ? charge more. Competitor ? charge much more.

    Its something everyone should be against. The correct way for the isps to get out of the shit they have put themselves
  • This is the backside of censorship
    If only the big media outlets have the pipes to get the word out then the message can be more easily controlled.
    Why do MS and GE need their own networks?
    Why were the rules changed to allow this?
    Look at the dates that all of these things happened for yourself
    Big corps need contracts and favors, Government needs the media to stay on message.
    If just anybody can spill the beans, it queers the deal.
  • Ending net neutrality will result a surge in compressed transport and CPU usage. Higher latency, higher CPU usage. More frustration and more wasted energy.

I am a computer. I am dumber than any human and smarter than any administrator.