UK ISP and Mobile Networks Snub Net Neutrality Pledge 51
nk497 writes "UK ISP Virgin Media and two of the largest mobile networks, Everything Everywhere and Vodafone, are among the high-profile absentees from a new voluntary code of conduct on net neutrality, set to be unveiled tomorrow. The code requires those who sign it to give users access to all legal content and not to discriminate against content providers on the basis of a commercial rivalry — but Virgin has refused to sign because it isn't tough enough. 'These principles remain open to misinterpretation and potential exploitation so, while we welcome efforts to reach a broad consensus to address potential future issues, we will be seeking greater certainty before we consider signing,' a company spokesman said."
It isn't tough enough because it isn't mandatory. (Score:5, Insightful)
It's like asking people to voluntarily ban guns.
Re:It isn't tough enough because it isn't mandator (Score:4, Interesting)
Indeed, but the UK (to me in my short lifetime) seems to work like this: We offer them something voluntary to sign up to which basically gives them far more freedom if they all agree.
Failure for everyone to agree generally leads to something becoming an official guideline; and then a law eventually if they still don't get in line.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Yeah, but we don't have the same problem with lack of competition between ISP's in the UK that they have in the US, so it's less of an issue. If your ISP isn't neutral, and you want one that is, it's extremely easy to change ISP.
Af if someone does want service that's cheaper because it's been subsided by Google and Facebook to give preferential access to those sites, I don't really see why there should be a law against their being offered that service.
Re:It isn't tough enough because it isn't mandator (Score:5, Interesting)
1) It creates a barrier to entry for new websites. They don't need to just technically match the competition, they also need to pay the ISPs not to throttle them.
2) It's easy enough to say that changing ISP will work, but that's only the case if net biassedness doesn't become required for ISPs to survive as a business. It is possible that every ISP would end up having to strike deals with sites in order to be able to charge something in the same ballpark as the competition.
3) If (2) happens, then I could definitely foresee the problem for consumers where it is impossible to get a single ISP with acceptable connections to all the sites you'd want to visit. Imagine if one condition of the BBC's bias agreement was that you weren't allowed to have a similar agreement with Netflix; one condition of Sky's agreement was that you couldn't have a similar agreement with the BBC; one condition of Netflix's agreement was that you couldn't have a similar agreement with Lovefilm (which would mean Amazon)... can you see where this would end up? Customers being forced to sign up to several different ISPs in order to get good connections to all major sites.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that Vigin is an ISP, Mobile Network, Cable TV provider, etc ...
and Everything Everywhere are what were Orange and T-Mobile run by Deutsche Telekom and France Télécom and are the main carriers of virgin Mobile traffic
This leaves O2 and Hutchison 3G as the only mobile carriers to sign up ...
Re:It isn't tough enough because it isn't mandator (Score:5, Interesting)
It's not even a net neutrality pledge anyway. It's got far far too many get-out clauses that ISPs can use as an excuse to not enforce net neutrality on their network.
Still, at least some ISPs such as Virgin and Vodafone had the decency to admit outright that they wont sign the pledge because they wont even enforce a semblance of network neutrality. I'm not sure if that makes them better or worse than the ones who signed it pretending they care about net neutrality when they know full well they intend to use any of the many get-out clauses when it suits anyway.
Re:The reason Virgin won't sign... (Score:5, Informative)
Virgin Media isn't owned by Sky - Sky Broadcasting is one of their main competitors. Virgin Media was created through mergers of NTL, Telewest, and Virgin Mobile. The also co-owned UKTV, along with BBC Worldwide, but I think they sold their share in it last year.
Re:The reason Virgin won't sign... (Score:5, Informative)
That's a division of Virgin Media relating to a few TV channels that they didn't jointly own with the BBC - they wanted out of that business so they sold them to Sky. Nothing to do with their cable network and nothing to do with owning the parent company.
There isn't a chance in hell that Sky would be allowed to own Virgin Media (or vice versa).
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Now explain the USA, the 50 states, Washington DC, Puerto Rico, American Samoa, and their voting, citizenship, taxation and representation....
For much the same reason, they are all old systems evolved over a long period and now have many exceptions ...
But the UK Telecom and ISP market is at least competitive, you have multiple carriers and ISP's in all areas, you can change carrier/ISP, and it is relatively easy
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
It's nowhere near as bad as the Internet wants to believe. If you're trying to leech a couple of hundred GB, or are running a seedbox 24/7, then yeah you can expect to get your bitch-ass throttled. On the other hand I can download an episode of Breaking Bad in under two minutes (I.e. maxing my 20Mb connection) and they don't even notice.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Translation (Score:5, Funny)
We haven't found a loophole we can use yet.
Whups (Score:5, Insightful)
The code requires those who sign it to give users access to all legal content...
Yes, because asking them to not block on the basis of ethics or morality would be too much. Fun fact: Everything is illegal somewhere. In Minnesota, driving a red car down Lake street is illegal. Elsewhere, wearing saggy pants is a crime. ISPs can't be expected to police for only "legal" content, because what's legal varies from city to city, state to state, country to country... and then there's interpretations of what's legal, and the fact that entire libraries -- libraries -- are filled with books listing only the laws. And that's just in this country. I suspect you could easily fill a small city's buildings with all the laws ever written. And let's not forget company policies, military, etc. The reason why we ask the police to enforce laws instead of countries is because (a) they're primarily tasked with doing what's in the public interest, and so they tend to focus on crimes that actually hurt people, and (b) the average person is poorly equipped to even know the law, much less the interpretation of the law that's politically popular right now.
Asking companies to monitor all personal communications for signs of illegal activity gives them de facto police powers, and worse, unlike the police, there's no legal recourse if their interpretation is wrong. Because if companies were liable for their enforcement actions, then they'd quickly be sued out of existance or bog down the judicial system with so many lawsuits as to do the same thing. That's why class action lawsuits were outlawed -- it wasn't because they weren't built on solid principles of justice, or that they were useful in maintaining harmony and all that... it was because it was the only real method of making a company pay a large enough penalty to change their behavior.
Companies shouldn't be looking at private communications -- period, end of discussion. That's the job of the police. And if it's inconvenient, well too fucking bad. The alternative is so toxic and dangerous to democracy that anyone who would suggest it should be put on some kind of internet 'no fly' list and barred from connecting to the network.
Re:Whups (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, wonderfully insightful I'm sure, but none of that is relevant here. They'renot being asked to police illegal content, they're being asked NOT to throttle back on legal content. Whether they look for or do anything with illegal content is up to them.
Also, it's worth noting that this is the UK we're talking about, which has a much more homogenous set of rules than the US, so your comment about things being differently legal in different places is also irrelevant.
Re:Whups (Score:4, Informative)
What is it you don't understand here?
The code says that they will not discriminate between types of legal traffic.
Nothing about the agreement requires them to monitor or block any traffic at all, sure it leaves them the option, but it doesn't require it. It requires that they don't block legit traffic.
Re:Whups (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't usually reply to someone twice, but my mind is boggling at the stupidity here. I mean seriously, how the fuck do you not get the difference between signing up for a code that forbids screwing with legit traffic, and the fantasy that you and the OP seem to be living in where this code enforces monitoring of all data and blocking things at will?
Sure, this code does not guarantee real, full net neutrality, but neither does it remove it. It's a step in the right direction.
Re: (Score:1)
You seem unaware that the only way to "forbid screwing with legit traffic" requires that you determine whether any particular bit of traffic is "legit traffic" or not....
Which pretty much means monitoring all traffic...
Re: (Score:1)
The cheaper option would be to screw with no traffic.
Re:Whups (Score:4, Informative)
You could do nothing at all, which is fully in line with this agreement.
Re: (Score:2)
...and the fantasy that you and the OP seem to be living in where this code enforces monitoring of all data and blocking things at will?
They cannot do that without determining what is legal content and what is not. Whether it's a computer algorithm or a person that looks at private traffic doesn't really matter: It's still the digital equivalent of opening other people's mail. Net neutrality doesn't just protect individuals, it also protects ISPs: The safe harbor provisions of the DMCA go away for any ISP that signs up for this. The moment they censor, restrict, obstruct, slow, or interfere with network traffic preferentially, they become
Re: (Score:2)
Companies shouldn't be looking at private communications -- period, end of discussion. That's the job of the police. And if it's inconvenient, well too fucking bad. The alternative is so toxic and dangerous to democracy that anyone who would suggest it should be put on some kind of internet 'no fly' list and barred from connecting to the network.
True... and only the police should be able to hunt and bring the offender in from of justice for the expression of such an opinion (not any companies, nor the public). In fact, Google should implement some filters to restrict searches about companies looking at private communications.
(grin)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Virgin Mobile are a separate entity.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt anyone's fibre is. Maybe Virgin's coax & twisted pair are though.
Re: (Score:2)
If Virgin Media don't have a network, then who the hell's fiber is that coming in to my house
It belongs to NTL Telecom Services Ltd.
"Virgin Media" is just a brand-name licensed from the Virgin Group to front the combined operation of NTL and Virgin Mobile Group.
Do a quick search for Media House Bartley Wood Business Park and be amazed at the variety of companies registered therein!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Basically there are two main ways for a home user to get internet in the UK*. DSL on their BT phone line** or cable modem on their virgin media cable. Most households in the UK can get the former, about half can get the latter.
With DSL down the phone line you have lots of options for internet service, you can buy internet service from BT, you can buy it from a provider who uses BT wholesale's network or in some areas you can buy it from a local loop unbundling provider who run their own DSL signals down the
net 'neutrality' (Score:1)
Which would you prefer (Score:2)
Well, Virgin, which would you prefer: relatively lenient voluntary guidelines, whose spirit you would probably weasel out of anyway, or legislated regulation? Worried about misinterpretation and potential exploitatio