An interesting article today on BBC discusses a new net neutrality code of practice which top ISPs have backed.
The idea is complicated. One of the concerns that has led to this is that people can sell premium packages for better performance to servers provide by specific companies, etc. i.e. charge for access to certain streaming TV, etc.
That is bad, but on the other hand, trying to define net neutrality is hard. For example, we offer email services and so do competitors. However, as our email servers are on our network, access to them is going to be better for our services than competitors. Is that against net neutrality?
Anyway, putting all that aside, as you can see from the BBC article, many top ISPs have signed, and one of the clauses is :-
Firms cannot market a subscription package as including "internet
access" if certain kinds of legal content or services are barred.
This has one very interesting implication. These top companies cannot sell an "internet access" package that does not have IPv6. If they do, then they are barring access to any IPv6 only services. There only has to be one IPv6 only service in existence for this to be the case.
The article states "Ten ISPs including BT, O2 and Talktalk backed the agreement"
So, what can I say? If you are with any of these ISPs, and if they claim to sell you "internet access", and if you cannot get to www.loopsofzen.co.uk then ask them why. If they eventually work out that it is an IPv6 only web site, ask why they are barring your access, and if that means they are in breach of this new code of practice by doing so. Remember, you can always take them to ADR over this as well.
OK, I have to say that I am being unusually cruel to my competitors here, and so please do take that as a joke. However, they should not sign such a code of practice if they do not expect their customers to challenge them when they don't meet it. Also, they damn well should be offering IPv6 now (see other blog post).
As for A&A's position on this - we don't filter anything and have not had any court orders to do so - we don't deliberately block anything, we just shift packets to Internet transit and peering, and we have an open peering policy at the peering points of which we are members. We don't (and can't) guarantee there is routing to every part of the Internet, as the Internet does not work like that, but we are not deliberately blocking anyone. I am not sure I want to sign the code of practice as I am not convinced their definitions are right, but the principles we are happy to go with and always have been.