OUT-LAW.COM, an online legal information site, has warned that neither regulators nor law protect Net Neutrality (restriction free access to legal online content and services) in the UK, where ISPs are free to block content from those that do not pay them to deliver it.
OUT-LAW Radio investigated whether there was any legal barrier in the UK to an ISP slowing or blocking access to video services, such as the iPlayer or YouTube, and found that there are none. As long as an ISP explains its actions in its Fair Use Policy (FUP) or statements of Terms and Conditions (T&C) then it is permitted to block whatever it likes.
In other words, if your ISP decided that you couldn't access the YouTube website unless you paid them extra then you would have no choice but to accept. A spokeswoman for telecoms regulator Ofcom said that ISPs all had to abide by its General Conditions, but that these did not specify that all Internet traffic had to be treated equally. Ofcom considered the matter but never reached any conclusions.
Naturally some degree of traffic management is often necessary, especially on budget priced broadband services, to help balance network load and give everybody a reasonable service. The problem is that the absence of Net Neutrality can also have a darker side, where UK ISPs effectively have the power to censor the entire Internet; not that 'most' of them would want to.
Imagine if you were only allowed to view selected websites or content. For example, consider the outcry if the boss of an ISP with a dislike for the BBC decided to block their websites and content (not unlike this recent BT-vs-BBC episode). There are clearly some very sensitive political as well as service implications.
It is, in our view, patently absurd for any ISP to suggest that legal content developers should pay them (the ISP) for the delivery of their content. Content is what makes the Internet what it is and, while the costs of bandwidth may not always be cheap, it is ultimately the consumer that has to pay for what they use; just like your gas, water or electricity supply.
OUT-LAW Radio investigated whether there was any legal barrier in the UK to an ISP slowing or blocking access to video services, such as the iPlayer or YouTube, and found that there are none. As long as an ISP explains its actions in its Fair Use Policy (FUP) or statements of Terms and Conditions (T&C) then it is permitted to block whatever it likes.
In other words, if your ISP decided that you couldn't access the YouTube website unless you paid them extra then you would have no choice but to accept. A spokeswoman for telecoms regulator Ofcom said that ISPs all had to abide by its General Conditions, but that these did not specify that all Internet traffic had to be treated equally. Ofcom considered the matter but never reached any conclusions.
A lawyer at consumer protection body Which?'s legal division added that consumers would only have grounds for complaint if a connection was interfered with without notification.
"The Supply of Goods and Services Act relates to their broadband contract so basically there is an obligation there to provide the service that was previously promised and as described," said Stephen McGlade of Which? Legal Services. "If there is any situation where the internet connection is reduced in some way obviously one would have to look at the service contract, at the terms and conditions, to see what it says in relation to that service agreement."
"The Supply of Goods and Services Act relates to their broadband contract so basically there is an obligation there to provide the service that was previously promised and as described," said Stephen McGlade of Which? Legal Services. "If there is any situation where the internet connection is reduced in some way obviously one would have to look at the service contract, at the terms and conditions, to see what it says in relation to that service agreement."
Naturally some degree of traffic management is often necessary, especially on budget priced broadband services, to help balance network load and give everybody a reasonable service. The problem is that the absence of Net Neutrality can also have a darker side, where UK ISPs effectively have the power to censor the entire Internet; not that 'most' of them would want to.
Imagine if you were only allowed to view selected websites or content. For example, consider the outcry if the boss of an ISP with a dislike for the BBC decided to block their websites and content (not unlike this recent BT-vs-BBC episode). There are clearly some very sensitive political as well as service implications.
It is, in our view, patently absurd for any ISP to suggest that legal content developers should pay them (the ISP) for the delivery of their content. Content is what makes the Internet what it is and, while the costs of bandwidth may not always be cheap, it is ultimately the consumer that has to pay for what they use; just like your gas, water or electricity supply.
Tweet
Comments: 3
DavePosted: 20 June, 2009 - 1:24 PM
Link to comment
First, declaration of vested interest. I run an ISP.
Comment: In principle, agree that ultimately consumer should pay for what they use. If we stick with net neutrality, then we end up with a price based on bandwith. Fine. But are the consumers ready for that. Do they want their price going up and down each month. If they download or watch something they may not realise how big it is. So, basic price of say £10 (there are fixed costs) then a supplement based on usage. Sounds fair. Interesting to see if consumers agree. Look forward to seeing other comments.
stevefosterPosted: 20 June, 2009 - 10:47 PM
Link to comment
I reckon BT have already started today, rapidshare is being blocked to every bt user i've talked to. The floodgates of random site blocking are open
MarkJPosted: 21 June, 2009 - 10:03 AM
Link to comment
One or two ISPs offer a package that starts at a minimum price point and then increases as you use more data. However there is an upper level, so for example you would never pay more than £25 or £30 per month.
There are all sorts of different methods that can be used, although personally I already pay a larger amount for a more flexible service. I accept that as being both reasonable and fair. Perhaps one problem here is that the bigger ISPs have instilled in people an “all you can eat” perception of budget price broadband, which is very dangerous.
Never the less, that perception should not be allowed to circumvent the basic economic principals of how broadband works. You pay for what you use, ISPs do it and so must consumers.
Generated in 0.57629 seconds.
DB queries: 8
Copyright © 1999 to Present - ISPreview.co.uk - All Rights Reserved (Terms, Privacy Policy, Links (.), Live Chat & Website Rules).