Sorry, but WTF.
Quotes from BBC "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." make no sense.
I, as an ISP, can, right now, go to the BBC or google and say "we will not pass your packets to our customers unless you pay us". I believe ISPs have tried this before.
I, as an ISP, can, right now, go to the BBC or google and say "if you pay us some money we'll make sure your packets get priority over our network to our customers".
This has always been the case. It is a simple commercial decision.
It is also a simple commercial decision that the likes of BBC and google say "no problem, we'll stop sending packets to you". As an ISP it is simply not sensible for me to try and offer a service to my customers that does not have the BBC or google. They know that. I know that. So simple commerce works and we don't get paid by BBC or google.
Equally, if the likes of BBC or google came to us offering us money for priority access to customers, we could consider it. TBH, the way we run the network it would not help as we aim to have uncongested links, and so "priority access" for be the same as they get now - but that does not mean I would not take their money and mark the packets accordingly.
They say "It paves the way for an end to "net neutrality"", but I am not aware of anything that provides "net neutrality" now? So what is ending?
We already have people that pay money to join peering points, or pay money for direct links to us, and cases where we pay money for direct links to other people, so as to provide a better service for our customers. A prime example is direct links to VoIP providers as we sell VoIP to our customers and want that to work well. Someone doing VoIP with some other provider does not have the benefit of that direct link and so inherently gets a worse link (though not that it matters as we aim not to run any links full).
They say "In the US, President Barack Obama has backed net neutrality - treating all traffic equally - and regulators have threatened possible legal action against ISPs that block or restrict access to sites.". They say "Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are supposed to treat all web traffic equally". But I am not aware of any UK laws which insist on this. It would be interesting if there are such laws, after all, almost all ISPs are "blocking" accesses to all IPv6 only "sites" at present, and if laws say that is not allowed then we have legislation for IPv6! If such laws exist then the IWF would be outlawed for a start!
Maybe I have missed something - I am sure someone will post a reference.
I wanted to improve our doorbell... Yes, that is dull. But the main change is not the bell (a nice, old style bell in the kitchen, which is ...
Broadband services are a wonderful innovation of our time, using multiple frequency bands (hence the name) to carry signals over wires (us...
For many years I used a small stand-alone air-conditioning unit in my study (the box room in the house) and I even had a hole in the wall fo...
It seems there is something of a standard test string for anti virus ( wikipedia has more on this). The idea is that systems that look fo...