{"id":29685,"date":"2022-01-04T01:00:11","date_gmt":"2022-01-04T01:00:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/?p=29685"},"modified":"2022-01-03T16:28:23","modified_gmt":"2022-01-03T16:28:23","slug":"isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html","title":{"rendered":"ISPs and Content Providers Respond to Ofcom’s UK Net Neutrality Review"},"content":{"rendered":"

Ofcom<\/a> has published<\/a> some of the first responses from UK broadband ISPs and internet content providers to their new review of Net Neutrality rules, which were designed to ensure no serious blocking or slowing of access to legal websites or other online services by ISPs and mobile operators. Suffice to say, vested interests split the pack.<\/p>\n

Commentators on this issue sometimes forget that, back in 2011\/12, the United Kingdom was actually one of the first countries within Europe to adopt a self-regulatory<\/strong> approach toward protection of the open internet<\/strong> (here<\/a>). Indeed, those rules also provided part of the foundation for the EU\u2019s own Directive in 2016 (here<\/a>), which was later adopted into UK law.<\/p>\n

NOTE:<\/strong> The current UK rules tend to be applied via a soft approach (i.e. it may be better to think of them as guidelines), which are governed by the Broadband Stakeholder Group’s (BSG) 2016 Open Internet Code<\/strong><\/a>. The code commits signatory ISPs to neutrality and transparency in traffic management (details<\/a>).<\/div>\n

In short, the regulation essentially means that providers cannot impose excessive restrictions against internet traffic and should treat almost all of it equally (i.e. they generally shouldn\u2019t favour specific services, such as by blocking or slowing access). However, there are some exceptions to this, such as for when providers need to impose general traffic management, court ordered blocks or for security measures (e.g. anti-virus\/spam filtering).<\/p>\n

The rules also help to stop ISPs from favouring content sources based on who pays them the most money, which might in turn lead to a degraded experience for other users (e.g. slowing the quality of Netflix or YouTube). This typically helps to ensure that excessive access controls over content don\u2019t result in a walled garden style internet experience.<\/p>\n

However, some of the big ISPs have never fully given up on their desire for a relaxation of the rules, which was underlined earlier this year by BT<\/a>’s predictable call for greater freedom (here<\/a>). On the flip side, content providers – stretching from the BBC<\/a> to Netflix – remain strongly supportive of the existing rules and are opposed to any weakening of those protections, which might shift more costs from ISPs on to their shoulders.<\/p>\n

In short, the first responses to Ofcom<\/a>’s new review, which opened in September 2021 (details<\/a>), tend to reflect the historically predictable divide of vested interests between the two camps (internet content vs access providers). The regulator will no doubt find it tricky to navigate a path through such opposing viewpoints.<\/p>\n

On top of that they’ll also need to remember the most important group of all, consumers, and the risk of creating more complications for them when choosing future packages. Today’s market is already absurdly complex, particularly with so many new alternative networks, all with varying different levels of service and coverage.<\/p>\n

Responses to Ofcom’s Net Neutrality Review<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Firstly, it’s important to reflect that the scope of Ofcom<\/a>’s review is actually limited in that it is intended to inform their work in monitoring and ensuring compliance with the current Net Neutrality<\/strong> rules, and the operation of current guidance on complying with the existing rules. However, any changes to the core rules themselves would be a matter for UK Government and, ultimately, Parliament.<\/p>\n

Below is a quick summary of some of the first and most interesting responses to Ofcom’s review, which helps to reflect the different, albeit often quite predictable, opinions that exist. The regulator currently expects to publish their initial findings from this review during Spring 2022<\/strong>. We can only hope that they continue to strike the right balance and don’t erode vital consumer protections.<\/p>\n

BBC<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The BBC<\/a>’s view is, perhaps unsurprisingly, that the existing principles have resulted in “flexible rules that remain fit-for-purpose<\/em>” and they’re “cautious of the risks raised by recent calls for a relaxation of the rules<\/em>.” But they also warn that alternative systems have been proposed, which they fear would encourage ISPs to charge online services for fast-tracked delivery to internet users.<\/p>\n

Extract from the BBC’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

“This could mean that users are no longer able to access all services at the same levels of speed or quality as today. If online service providers (e.g. the BBC, ITV, Netflix, gaming companies etc) are charged a fee by ISPs \u2013 many companies will pass the increased cost on to consumers meaning UK customers facing higher prices. The BBC would however have to divert licence fee income away from British content investment, to pay ISPs for access to audiences.<\/p>\n

…<\/p>\n

While use of the internet is growing and will continue to do so, the consequent investments that all parties involved will need to make to facilitate this does not warrant a change to the net neutrality rules. Instead, we would encourage that traffic spikes are tackled by exploring what can be done within the rules, which already allow for flexible traffic management. Further, all parties should be encouraged to work more collaboratively to manage traffic loads, given their aligned interests in delivering content and services effectively to internet users.”<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

We should point out that, one way or another, any increased costs from service delivery – be that on the side of the ISP or the content provider – will generally end up being passed on to consumers. The ever-rising consumption of data is one of the reasons why both ISPs and content providers raise their prices every year, to help cover the related costs.<\/p>\n

BT<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The national telecom giant has already made no secret of their desire for the rules to be changed because, they claim, “there are very good reasons to enable preferential access to certain platforms<\/em>” (good for BT<\/a>, perhaps, albeit possibly less so for content providers and consumers). But they’ve not previously spelt out precisely what kind of \u201cadjusted<\/em>\u201d rules they want to see and we\u2019re of the view that the current approach helps to keep things fair.<\/p>\n

Sadly, BT<\/a>’s response, much like a few others today, is full of vaguely defined words like “innovation<\/em>” – masking the detail of what they’d actually like to do. At the same time, they appear to rehash many of the arguments from 2011, when it’s easy to forget that consumer internet traffic was already starting to be dominated by online video traffic.<\/p>\n

In other areas they appear to suggest that customers themselves want more control over traffic, which might be true in some respects, but we’re unclear on the merits of BT’s specific argument here – as opposed, perhaps, to the ISP just delivering a good quality of service, in general.<\/p>\n

Extract from BT’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

The market is also moving towards more personalisation. Connectivity is central to our customers lives, but not all customers have the same needs. Increasingly, they want unique experiences targeted at their individual preferences\/usage. Customers should be empowered to decide how services are prioritised or managed over the network. For example, if they want to prioritise their streaming over non time-critical updates, or real-time QoS boosts for gamers.<\/p>\n

The rules should recognise that not all discrimination is harmful and even within internet access services ISPs should be able to differentiate service tiers and charge accordingly for customers who are willing to pay for a premium service. This structure avoids cross subsidy by over-offering functionality to customers who do not need it.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

No feedback from a consumer survey is included to support BT’s case above. Lest we forget that those stuck on slower lines often have no choice but to prioritise traffic (if you connect at sub-10Mbps then it’s easy to saturate the line with demand). But people on fast FTTP<\/a> lines really shouldn’t, ideally, have or need to make such decisions over prioritisation.<\/p>\n

BT also argues against the end users’ rights to use the terminal equipment of their choice, which to be fair, doesn’t seem to have stopped some ISPs from bundling extremely locked-down routers and obstructing customers from using a third-party device (e.g. Truespeed<\/a>).<\/p>\n

But BT might have a point when they highlight that some terminal equipment, like IoT (Internet of Things) devices, may only need limited connectivity (i.e. limited to the functionality of that device), which could be true for smaller devices (sensors etc.). However, they extend this argument to include “connectivity sold to use with a particular gaming device, smart watch, smart phone or connected device<\/em>“, which is much more debatable (e.g. if “gaming device<\/em>” includes an XBox or PS5 etc.). BT then concludes with the following:<\/p>\n

Extract from BT’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

We welcome the breath of Ofcom\u2019s review, the outputs of which could provide the evidence base and analysis for Government to take forward more fundamental review. In the short term we believe Ofcom can make meaningful change including as follows:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Refresh the guidelines from scratch with a focus on innovation and consumer welfare – the current guidelines are overly complex and have sought to find new \u2018problems\u2019 to regulate.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Interpret the legislation in a way that provides the right incentives for the wider value chain \u2013 for instance it should be permissible to treat unidentified and\/or inefficiency distributed traffic below other traffic.<\/p>\n

\u2022 Broker a code of conduct for content distribution \u2013 for instance encouraging off-peak timing of gaming updates as was agreed during the pandemic.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The idea of off-peak timing for gaming updates is interesting, but it’s a tricky one to get right across multiple countries. Lest we forget that during off-peak periods a lot of consumers will have switched-off their gaming devices (i.e. due to being at work \/ school etc.).<\/p>\n

Broadband Stakeholders Group (BSG)<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

As overseers of the original open internet code, the BSG’s views are important. To date, and taken as a whole, the BSG “considers the existing open internet regime has worked well. Transparency and competition between providers is strong, full internet access products predominate and negative discrimination of content and services is rare<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

However, they also “recognise that some reform to Ofcom\u2019s guidance may be necessary to sustain an open internet to its fullest possible extent<\/em>.” The group points to this being driven by significantly larger future “peaks<\/em>” of traffic (today surges are usually double the normal level, but by 2031 they could rise to 4x as much), IoT, 5G<\/a> take-up and greater reliance on cloud-based services.<\/p>\n

Extract from the BSG’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

The BSG believes Ofcom should give consideration offering further guidance to how the rules apply in three areas in particular:<\/p>\n

\u2022 Zero-rating;<\/p>\n

\u2022 Specialised services, where newer services such as private 5G networks and Internet Protocol Virtual Private Networks should be explicitly addressed; and<\/p>\n

\u2022 Interoperability and good practice among value chain participants.<\/p>\n

In all of these areas, there is now a clear need for a neutral, cross-sector forum in which more detailed examples of good practice and guidance can be developed. This is particularly important given uncertainty created by recent European Court of Justice judgments on zero rating, the Body of European Regulators for Electronic Communications\u2019 review of the guide-lines, and the need for a pro-innovation approach to future services.<\/p>\n

The BSG is ideally placed to fulfil such a role via our Open Internet Forum. We therefore pro-pose to initiate a new work programme focused on ensuring that innovation and evolution flourishes within the principles of an open internet and the existing net neutrality rules.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Sadly, there’s not much detail in the BSG’s submission, thus we’re unsure of their position on VPNs. But one way or another, these areas will need to be discussed and it seems sensible for the BSG to be involved.<\/p>\n

Channel 4<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The response from C4 is short and broadly supportive of the current code, as you’d expect. But they also warn about “the concentration of market power amongst a few key firms and changes in how consumers are utilising the internet<\/em>“, although they don’t name anybody and so the context is a little vague.<\/p>\n

The broadcaster goes on to state that “relaxing net neutrality rules risks further entrenching the influence of companies who dominate consumption online and could use their market power to gain further competitive advantages, such as through paying for priority traffic<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

Channel 4 also has concerns that companies are “circumventing net neutrality rules<\/em>” by offering deals for apps or services so that they do not count towards any data limits (known as “zero-rating<\/em>“). They exclude beneficial zero rating from this argument, such as for emergency health services or education. We have seen a number of mobile operators offering Zero Rating features for certain streaming services and social media (C4 highlights the latter), but so far Ofcom hasn’t been overly concerned about those that remain.<\/p>\n

Extract from C4’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

International evidence shows, particularly in countries with limited internet infrastructure, that zero-rating has been used to give consumers unlimited access to social media. The impact of this has been demonstrated to distort access to legal content and increase the spread of viral misinformation.<\/p>\n

In an age of rapidly increasing online consumption, this raises important public policy questions about fair access to public service media. Firstly, that the zero-rating practice has the potential to be exclusionary as few public service media organisations have the financial resources to agree these commercial deals.<\/p>\n

Secondly, that zero-rating has the potential to undermine PSB prominence frameworks as by their nature these deals give preferential access to certain apps and services.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

In 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) ruled against zero-rating practices by Vodafone<\/a> and Telekom, stating that is not in accordance with the EU’s net-neutrality law (the same one that the UK adopted). But it remains to be seen how this is actually going to be interpreted elsewhere and if it will even impact Ofcom’s thinking.<\/p>\n

Comms Council UK<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Naturally the Comms Council UK, which largely represents the wider VoIP (internet phone) sector, is strongly supportive of the existing rules and will be weary of any changes that could obstruct the services they support. “The resounding view of our membership (baring one ongoing area we consider needs a watching brief from Ofcom, backed by its powers as necessary which we discuss below) is that the Regulation has been a success and it should be left alone<\/em>,” said the council.<\/p>\n

As for the “ongoing area<\/em>” of concern hinted at above, the council later notes Ofcom’s position that it “do[es] not intend to look at \u2018device neutrality\u2019 in the context of any restrictions on internet access determined by the device manufacturers and\/or operating systems<\/em>“. The Council says this is “ill-advised, as it risks today’s expectations of ubiquitous service reliability and will likely necessitate subsequent regulation, further disrupting the industry and its consumers<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

Extract from the Comms Council UK’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

In circumstances where devices are provided as an integral part of the Internet Access Service (e.g. a bundled router or handset), then we consider that the subject of device neutrality cannot simply be ignored.<\/p>\n

Had Comms Council UK not lobbied hard for a decade on the subject, had NICC not issued a standard on SIP ALG, had the existence of the Regulation not forced EE to change its terms, and other things, it is very possible that the experience of the UK during COVID-19 lockdowns could have been very different.<\/p>\n

Historically, routers provided by Sky to its residential customers could not be replaced without the involvement of a customer services agent (as their DSLAM authenticated based on the router\u2019s MAC address) and interfered with over-the-top voice services. Similar historical accounts can be given for several other major internet service providers, and EE had an outright ban on its customers using competing services.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

It remains to be seen whether Ofcom agrees with this, but the point does seem relevant.<\/p>\n

ISPA<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

It’s important to stress that not all ISPs share the views of those who want to weaken the existing Net Neutrality rules. Indeed, the ISPA<\/a>, which represents UK ISPs from a much broader cross-section of the market, notes that the “core principles of the UK\u2019s net neutrality framework have worked well<\/em>” and they see “no significant or sustained concerns<\/em>” that would warrant “a more restrictive interpretation of net neutrality rules<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

Flick over the page to see more feedback from the ISPA<\/a>, as well as Netflix, Three UK<\/a>, Virgin Media<\/a> (VMO2), Vodafone<\/a>, ITV, KCOM<\/a> and Sky (Sky Broadband<\/a>).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

However, there are a few caveats to this, because the ISPA<\/a> would still support an explicit carve-out of enterprise-grade business services from the regime, which can be highly tailored (e.g. SDN, NFV, 5G<\/a>, hybrid networks and IoT). “If a wholesale carve-out is not possible, Ofcom should at least consider clarifying the application of specialised services in relation to enterprise grade connectivity<\/em>,” said the ISPA.<\/p>\n

The association also seeks a different approach to “high traffic events<\/em>“, due to “the risk of service degradation due to a small number of content providers updating their offering simultaneously<\/em>,” which is increasing year on year (this sounds similar to the point that BT made about off-peak updates for video games etc.).<\/p>\n

The ISPA would also like to see more clarity from Ofcom on how the UK’s net neutrality framework can “accommodate the potential for innovation offered by full-fibre and 5G<\/a> networks<\/em>,” but they don’t spell out precisely what they mean by “innovation<\/em>” in this case.<\/p>\n

Netflix<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The internet streaming giant is another veteran of this debate, although they have recently faced some setbacks, such as in South Korea where a local ISP – SK Broadband – successfully sued the firm in a dispute over content delivery costs. But it’s important to stress that the law in South Korea is different from the UK, not least because they already allow for network usage fees through a 2016 framework. This is perhaps also one of the reasons why internet IP transit prices in Korea are now significantly more expensive than quite a few other countries.<\/p>\n

Extract from Netflix’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

Netflix has observed some ISPs use their position over access to customers in order to extract network fees from content providers instead of working together to provide the best quality of service under a more cooperative approach. These fees serve no purpose other than providing a rent for the ISP, as ISPs have little incentive to use revenues from interconnection fees to build out network capacity or reduce rates for end-users.<\/p>\n

In fact, seeking network payments will lead to perverse incentives for the ISPs as the only way to force a content provider to pay is to ensure the congestion of all alternative routes (through Transit ISPs) into the ISP\u2019s network. Such restrictive interconnection practices have two consequences. First, customers of the ISP will receive poor performance on any content or service not directly connected to the ISP, despite paying for access to the entire internet, and second, the only alternative for a content provider will be to either pay a termination fee or suffer congestion and quality degradation.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Suffice to say, Netflix broadly and predictably supports the current rules, although they do want to see a closer examination of Zero Rating plans, such as those that only apply to certain video streaming services but not others.<\/p>\n

Three UK<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Mobile operators have a long history of arguing against Net Neutrality rules, thus it will come as no surprise that Three UK<\/a> argues strongly for more flexibility, seemingly across as many areas as it can. “If anything, improved traffic management measures will allow customers to have more reliable access to various types of more basic services as more data-heavy services are managed more appropriately<\/em>,” said Three.<\/p>\n

Virgin Media (VMO2)<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

VMO2, which much like BT sits in that awkward ground of being a mobile operator, content broadcaster and broadband provider – all rolled into one, views the current regulation as being based off a “poorly drafted law, reflective of the fact that it represents a compromise position to address a potential problem that few legislators really understood at the time of adoption<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

Extract from VMO2’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

Ofcom should feel emboldened to take an expansive approach to its review and engender a more permissive and equitable net neutrality regime. This does not necessarily mean that there is no place for a net neutrality regulatory framework. Rather, we believe that the way forward is a principles-based approach enshrining transparency and the maintenance of freedom of access, and fostering the freedom to innovate.<\/p>\n

As far as the current legislative framework is concerned, there is no need for over-interpretation of existing law \u2013 instead, Ofcom should merely clarify where the drafting is imprecise. The internet is a dynamic economy precisely because it is not regulated \u2013 this ability to innovate freely must be applied to the telecoms sector if it is to keep pace with the rest of the value chain. Ofcom should not be placed in the position of \u2018approving\u2019 technological innovation for ECS\/ECNs because of over-prescriptive interpretations of what are high level concepts enshrined in the law.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Vodafone<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

As with other mobile operators, Vodafone<\/a> argues strongly against Net Neutrality and calls for the existing rules to recieve “significant reform<\/em>” as they allegedly limit “the potential of network and service benefits that can be offered to consumers, businesses, and the public sector<\/em>.” The operator’s response is quite long and thus difficult to summarise, but they somehow manage to suggest that the current rules are delivering “inferior outcomes for UK consumers<\/em>,” which is highly debatable.<\/p>\n

Extract from Vodafone’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

Regulation in the context of Net Neutrality has overreached. It has sought to guard against a problem that has never manifested itself in the UK. The success of competition between retail broadband and mobile providers acts as a natural constraint against any attempts to materially influence the internet experience of consumers. There are no significant co-ownership concerns regarding ISPs and content providers in the UK, negating the need for such restrictive rules.<\/p>\n

There is also a question of fairness. Today the rules are firmly focused in the wrong place. While intense retail competition prevents network providers acting to influence internet outcomes, the large platforms who dominate the internet sit outside the jurisdiction of Net Neutrality and can consequently favour their own applications and services inside their respective eco-systems and Content Delivery Networks (CDNs).<\/p>\n

There is no incentive on these eco-systems to use network capacity efficiently, being entirely disconnected from the costs associated with providing access. This imbalance in regulatory approach is not only unjust and unsustainable, it is delivering inferior outcomes for UK consumers.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

ITV<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Much like the BBC<\/a> and other broadcasters, the ITV supports the current approach and adds that “net neutrality rules do not appear to have acted as any form of constraint to investment<\/em>.” They also criticise BT’s position on the subject.<\/p>\n

Extract from ITV’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

The only firm we are aware is actively pushing for the removal of the rules is BT. BT seems to be suggesting that the growth in online services and content and a lack of coordination between content providers over when content is released means that a) their costs are increasing and b) that the network is actually unable to cope with consumer demand.<\/p>\n

Their CEO has also suggested that the \u201c…only contribution being made [to meet such costs] is by consumers through what they pay or by us, the networks<\/em>\u201d and asked \u201cIs that fair?<\/em>\u201d These issues, it argues, necessitate the removal of the net neutrality rule to enable the charging of a subset of online content providers which BT argue offer the most bandwidth-intensive services. We do not believe either of these positions holds merit.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

ITV goes on to note that Openreach<\/a> has only recently cut its wholesale FTTP<\/a> prices and warns that BT’s argument overlooks how “content providers are already investing substantially to lessen the burden on networks and improve the consumer experience<\/em>” (e.g. via new content delivery \/ CDN arrangements). “If BT\u2019s network cannot cope – or it cannot bear the cost of increased demand – then it should not be advocating for an unnecessarily aggressive switch to all-IP TV delivery<\/em>,” added the broadcaster.<\/p>\n

KCOM<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

The Hull-based provider claims to support the “concept<\/em>” of Net Neutrality, but they also point out that “there has been significant growth in the market for internet access services<\/em>” and these changes have, they say, resulted in “increasing demand on networks which has been accelerated by the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic … We expect that some of these impacts will be enduring<\/em>.”<\/p>\n

KCOM<\/a> then suggests that the current framework “is a very blunt instrument which offers little flexibility for commercial innovation, nor does it enable ISPs to adapt to the evolving needs of their customers<\/em>.” The provider then goes on to claim that “some customers may be willing to pay more for higher quality of service\/enhanced capabilities in relation to particular categories of application\/content (e.g., gaming) but the net neutrality framework effectively prohibits the development of these options<\/em>” (i.e. they want more freedom to develop new commercial models, which could be seen as allowing some traffic discrimination).<\/p>\n

On the flip side, they want consumers to be “given meaningful information on their usage and on the network management techniques that are deployed<\/em>” by ISPs, which still isn’t provided by every internet provider (not all ISPs respect the BSG’s existing code). We agree that more transparency and wider adoption of the existing approach would be a good thing for consumers.<\/p>\n

Curiously, though, KCOM<\/a> claims that “while some traffic peaks can be anticipated, it is simply not possible for ISPs to efficiently and economically size their networks to deal with all possible events<\/em>.” Sky, speaking below, appears to disagree with this perspective and, on a practical basis, we have yet to see many ISPs truly struggling to adapt to major new peaks of usage.<\/p>\n

Sky<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Interestingly, Sky (Sky Broadband<\/a>), which acts as both an ISP and TV content provider (an awkward position to hold in this debate), says they “do not support the argument made by some ISPs<\/em>” (e.g. BT) that the current framework is unfair because it prevents them from charging the internet companies who are responsible for the majority of internet traffic more to use their networks.<\/p>\n

Extract from Sky’s Response<\/strong><\/p>\n

While in the UK there has been sustained growth in internet traffic and ISPs continue to invest in more network capacity to meet this growth, these costs still represent a relatively small proportion of the overall ISP cost stack for delivering internet access services and subsequently end users\u2019 internet access bills (which remain relatively low and affordable for most). Further, the largest internet companies (and their content distribution network, CDN, partners) also bear the costs of implementing and operating networking solutions with ISPs to cache content closer to end users. These costs are passed onto the end users of the internet companies\u2019 services.<\/p>\n

As internet traffic continues to grow, there is no reason to believe that the current framework will not continue to support good outcomes for consumers, businesses, ISPs and internet companies. Internet companies and ISPs will continue to have a shared goal of making sure their respective products work well and this has the knock-on beneficial effect of improving the quality of delivery of other, smaller internet services. The risk with affording ISPs more scope to discriminate between sources of internet traffic is that end users\u2019 scope to use the internet freely is diminished with ISPs favouring certain internet traffic (including their own services).<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Closing Thoughts<\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Data usage has always grown at a fairly natural but rapid pace year-on-year, while events like COVID-19, despite being both exceptional and incredibly rare, were very well managed by the UK telecoms industry.<\/p>\n

We’re also of the view that the advent of FTTP<\/a> and 5G is not necessarily radically different from historic shifts in internet speeds and technology, such as the move from dialup<\/a> to ADSL<\/a>, later followed by the move to FTTC<\/a> and Cable. Lest we forget that other countries have gone through the FTTP transition already and appear to have managed it without any big problems, just as ISPs always have.<\/p>\n

However, most respondents did at least agree that there needed to be clearer guidance or rules around the Zero Rating<\/strong> of data traffic, albeit not always for the same reasons. Most highlighted how it helped manage situations like the COVID-19 crisis, when ISPs worked with education outlets and emergency services to offer free data usage to certain services (e.g. Oak Academy, BBC Bitesize or NHS COVID sites). On the flip side, Channel 4 is worried about the use of zero rating with other internet services, such as social media platforms. Some clarity may indeed be needed here.<\/p>\n

Equally, there are some valid points about the realities of competition, which is to say that any internet provider choosing to impose tighter restrictions on traffic might well bleed customers to rivals who have tactically chosen to be more flexible.<\/p>\n

At the end of the day, demand for broadband and mobile data services would not exist without internet content providers (e.g. YouTube, Netflix, websites etc.). Some ISPs may complain that the increase in related data usage from these services and others raises their costs, which is true, but that\u2019s also the nature of the beast (a cost of doing business) and should ideally continue to be reflected in the prices we all pay as end-users.<\/p>\n

The arguments above can, at times, seem more like an attempt by one group to shift the aforementioned extra costs on to the other group. But as we said earlier, one way or another, the consumer will still end up paying for that. We don’t envy Ofcom in having to navigate such strongly opposing views, but that is the job they exist to do and we await, with great interest, to see what they decide to do.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Ofcom has published some of the first responses from UK broadband ISPs and internet content providers to their new review of Net Neutrality rules, which were designed to ensure no serious blocking or slowing of access to legal websites or other online services by ISPs and mobile operators. Suffice to say, vested interests split the […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":26531,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"ngg_post_thumbnail":0,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[474,405,76,82,32,36,66,63,475,96],"class_list":["post-29685","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-uk_isp_news","tag-bt","tag-ee","tag-kc","tag-net-neutrality","tag-o2","tag-ofcom-regulation","tag-sky-broadband","tag-three-uk","tag-virgin-media","tag-vodafone"],"share_on_mastodon":{"url":"","error":""},"yoast_head":"\nISPs and Content Providers Respond to Ofcom's UK Net Neutrality Review - ISPreview UK<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Ofcom has published some of the first responses from UK broadband ISPs and internet content providers to their new review of Net Neutrality rules, which\" \/>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html\" \/>\n<link rel=\"next\" href=\"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html\/2\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_GB\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"ISPs and Content Providers Respond to Ofcom's UK Net Neutrality Review - ISPreview UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Ofcom has published some of the first responses from UK broadband ISPs and internet content providers to their new review of Net Neutrality rules, which\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"ISPreview UK\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ispreview\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:author\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ispreview\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2022-01-04T01:00:11+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/nggallery_import\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"1000\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Mark Jackson\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@ispreview\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@ispreview\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Mark Jackson\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Estimated reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"22 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"NewsArticle\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Mark Jackson\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/de66a8b4e937c21c80e443d1bf9c35d5\"},\"headline\":\"ISPs and Content Providers Respond to Ofcom’s UK Net Neutrality Review\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-01-04T01:00:11+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html\"},\"wordCount\":5002,\"commentCount\":26,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/#organization\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/nggallery_import\\\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg\",\"keywords\":[\"BT\",\"EE\",\"KCOM\",\"Net Neutrality\",\"O2\",\"Ofcom Regulation\",\"Sky Broadband\",\"Three UK\",\"Virgin Media\",\"Vodafone\"],\"articleSection\":[\"ISP News\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html\",\"name\":\"ISPs and Content Providers Respond to Ofcom's UK Net Neutrality Review - ISPreview UK\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/#website\"},\"primaryImageOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#primaryimage\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#primaryimage\"},\"thumbnailUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/nggallery_import\\\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg\",\"datePublished\":\"2022-01-04T01:00:11+00:00\",\"description\":\"Ofcom has published some of the first responses from UK broadband ISPs and internet content providers to their new review of Net Neutrality rules, which\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/2022\\\/01\\\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#primaryimage\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/nggallery_import\\\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/nggallery_import\\\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"internet_traffic_uk_illustration\"},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/\",\"name\":\"ISPreview UK\",\"description\":\"Top Broadband ISP and Mobile Provider Information Site\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/#organization\"},\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"ISPreview.co.uk\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/ispreview_uk_logo.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2020\\\/07\\\/ispreview_uk_logo.jpg\",\"width\":1000,\"height\":1000,\"caption\":\"ISPreview.co.uk\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/ispreview\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/ispreview\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.linkedin.com\\\/in\\\/mjack\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/bsky.app\\\/profile\\\/ispreview.bsky.social\",\"https:\\\/\\\/mastodon.social\\\/@ispreview\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/de66a8b4e937c21c80e443d1bf9c35d5\",\"name\":\"Mark Jackson\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-GB\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/nggallery_import\\\/Mark-Jackson-96x96.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/nggallery_import\\\/Mark-Jackson-96x96.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2023\\\/01\\\/nggallery_import\\\/Mark-Jackson-96x96.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Mark Jackson\"},\"description\":\"By Mark Jackson Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.\",\"sameAs\":[\"http:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\",\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/ispreview\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/ispreview\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.ispreview.co.uk\\\/index.php\\\/author\\\/markj\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"ISPs and Content Providers Respond to Ofcom's UK Net Neutrality Review - ISPreview UK","description":"Ofcom has published some of the first responses from UK broadband ISPs and internet content providers to their new review of Net Neutrality rules, which","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html","next":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html\/2","og_locale":"en_GB","og_type":"article","og_title":"ISPs and Content Providers Respond to Ofcom's UK Net Neutrality Review - ISPreview UK","og_description":"Ofcom has published some of the first responses from UK broadband ISPs and internet content providers to their new review of Net Neutrality rules, which","og_url":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html","og_site_name":"ISPreview UK","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ispreview","article_author":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ispreview","article_published_time":"2022-01-04T01:00:11+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1000,"height":1000,"url":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/nggallery_import\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Mark Jackson","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@ispreview","twitter_site":"@ispreview","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Mark Jackson","Estimated reading time":"22 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"NewsArticle","@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html"},"author":{"name":"Mark Jackson","@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/de66a8b4e937c21c80e443d1bf9c35d5"},"headline":"ISPs and Content Providers Respond to Ofcom’s UK Net Neutrality Review","datePublished":"2022-01-04T01:00:11+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html"},"wordCount":5002,"commentCount":26,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/#organization"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/nggallery_import\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg","keywords":["BT","EE","KCOM","Net Neutrality","O2","Ofcom Regulation","Sky Broadband","Three UK","Virgin Media","Vodafone"],"articleSection":["ISP News"],"inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html","url":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html","name":"ISPs and Content Providers Respond to Ofcom's UK Net Neutrality Review - ISPreview UK","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/#website"},"primaryImageOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#primaryimage"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#primaryimage"},"thumbnailUrl":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/nggallery_import\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg","datePublished":"2022-01-04T01:00:11+00:00","description":"Ofcom has published some of the first responses from UK broadband ISPs and internet content providers to their new review of Net Neutrality rules, which","inLanguage":"en-GB","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html"]}]},{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/2022\/01\/isps-and-content-providers-respond-to-ofcoms-uk-net-neutrality-review.html#primaryimage","url":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/nggallery_import\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/nggallery_import\/internet_traffic_uk_illustration.jpg","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"internet_traffic_uk_illustration"},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/","name":"ISPreview UK","description":"Top Broadband ISP and Mobile Provider Information Site","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/#organization"},"potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-GB"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/#organization","name":"ISPreview.co.uk","url":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/ispreview_uk_logo.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2020\/07\/ispreview_uk_logo.jpg","width":1000,"height":1000,"caption":"ISPreview.co.uk"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ispreview","https:\/\/x.com\/ispreview","https:\/\/www.linkedin.com\/in\/mjack\/","https:\/\/bsky.app\/profile\/ispreview.bsky.social","https:\/\/mastodon.social\/@ispreview"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/#\/schema\/person\/de66a8b4e937c21c80e443d1bf9c35d5","name":"Mark Jackson","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-GB","@id":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/nggallery_import\/Mark-Jackson-96x96.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/nggallery_import\/Mark-Jackson-96x96.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2023\/01\/nggallery_import\/Mark-Jackson-96x96.jpg","caption":"Mark Jackson"},"description":"By Mark Jackson Mark is a professional technology writer, IT consultant and computer engineer from Dorset (England), he also founded ISPreview in 1999 and enjoys analysing the latest telecoms and broadband developments. Find me on X (Twitter), Mastodon, Facebook, BlueSky, Threads.net and Linkedin.","sameAs":["http:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk","https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/ispreview","https:\/\/x.com\/ispreview"],"url":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/author\/markj"}]}},"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29685","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=29685"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/29685\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/26531"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=29685"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=29685"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.ispreview.co.uk\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=29685"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}