The ongoing international debate over net neutrality has been thrown into the limelight once again. This time its news of an unlikely partnership between Google, the once vocal advocates of net neutrality, and Verizon.

Neil Watson, Head of Operations

News broke regarding a ‘deal’ between Google and Verizon which would see the two companies put together a proposal for the tackling of net neutrality in the US. At first glance the two titans appear to support net neutrality and agree with previous plans from the FCC (Federal Communications Commission) ensuring all providers are transparent about the management of their networks and prohibit discrimination against certain types of legal content.

“In providing broadband Internet access service, a provider would be prohibited from engaging in undue discrimination against any lawful Internet content, application, or service in a manner that causes meaningful harm to competition or to users. Prioritization of Internet traffic would be presumed inconsistent with the non-discrimination standard, but the presumption could be rebutted.”

• scribd.com: Verizon-Google Legislative Framework Proposal

However the proposals have provoked wide spread criticism and even protests in the US. The main cause of concern is the fact that the net neutrality proposals would not apply to wireless providers and create potential loopholes for what they are calling ‘differentiated content’.

“Because of the unique technical and operational characteristics of wireless networks, and the competitive and still-developing nature of wireless broadband services, only the transparency principle would apply to wireless broadband at this time.”

Critics argue that this in itself could completely undermine the principal of net neutrality and create a two tiered Internet. The BBC quotes one protester who argues “They are talking about producing a fast lane, essentially a higher tier, for premium content that means if you want to play in the 21st Century Internet you will have to pay.”

• BBC.co.uk: Protesters denounce Google plan for ‘two-tier internet’ – Protesters denounce Google plan for ‘two-tier internet’

The issue is that if a two-tier Internet was allowed to evolve providers like Verizon could charge a content provider such as Google for access to the ‘fast lane’. Therefore customers using rival services such as Yahoo would experience much slower speeds than customers using Google, allowing Google to eliminate competitors because it has the resources to fund a better user experience. Secondly ISPs such as Verizon could slow down competing services e.g. other providers VoIP traffic, again creating an unfair advantage.

This latest argument raises a number of important questions. Firstly why exactly have Google and Verizon taken it upon themselves to draw up these proposals? Surely that is the job of the regulator, who in this case is the FCC. The FCC’s powers have already been called into question recently when a ruling against Comcast on a related net neutrality issue was overturned on appeal. Surely the fact that two major industry players are uniting to develop proposals that could potentially be adopted into law without consulting the regulator fundamentally undermines the powers and purpose of the FCC. Can you imagine the commotion if Google attempted something similar in the UK, consulting with BT without input from Ofcom for example?

Secondly when and why did Google move from a vocal net neutrality advocate to a potential adversary? Back in 2006 Google’s CEO, Eric Schmidt, had a very different stance, calling for Internet users to unite to protect net neutrality from the evils of the giant cable monopolies. “Today the Internet is an information highway where anybody – no matter how large or small, how traditional or unconventional – has equal access. But the phone and cable monopolies, who control almost all Internet access, want the power to choose who gets access to high-speed lanes and whose content gets seen first and fastest. They want to build a two-tiered system and block the on-ramps for those who can’t pay. Creativity, innovation and a free and open marketplace are all at stake in this fight.”

• Techcrunch.com: Guess Who Else Disagrees With Google’s Net Neutrality Plan? Google In 2006

It turns out it’s not just the obvious net neutrality advocates that are against Google and Verizon’s plans. Their industry peers seem to be lining up to denounce the proposals. Ebay reportedly commented that “two-tier networks with corporate toll lanes would stifle ground-up innovation and benefit dominant businesses at the expense of smaller competitors and entrepreneurs.” It seems they are not alone with Amazon stating that “while network operators should be allowed to offer additional services, we are concerned that this proposal appears to condone services that could harm consumer internet access”. Finally Skype added “We believe openness principles should apply to wireless as well as fixed-line internet access.”

• Telegraph.co.uk: Rivals sceptical of Google’s net neutrality plans

So what does this mean for the UK?

This is all going on in the US and would only affect ISPs and users across the pond so you could be forgiven for thinking that this debate is irrelevant and won’t affect you. However, as with many things that start in the US there is an inevitable path towards the UK. Our saving grace is perhaps the fact that we have Ofcom as a regulator which arguably has more power and influence (currently at least) than the FCC and the fact that we are partly ‘governed’ by the EU which is currently investigating its own net neutrality proposals.

The other important point to remember is that currently at least, this is all just a set of proposals put together by Verizon and Google. These proposals have no legal weight and affect no one else. The concern is that the ‘proposals’ could be used as a basis from which the FCC would draft legal obligations and obviously in their current format the proposals leave a lot to be desired.

The net neutrality debate is a complicated one. Whilst we agree with the fundamental principal of keeping a level playing field, the increasing demand for bandwidth means increasing costs for ISPs and makes providing a fair and equal service for all customers increasingly difficult. Eventually it is inevitable that ISPs need to implement traffic management policies to ensure a high quality service for all customers. We agree that providers should be open and honest about the policies they apply. Therefore we agree with the basis of the Google and Verizon proposals however we also believe that it is essential such proposals be applied to all providers, fixed line or otherwise. If not the potential for a tiered Internet is far too great and the potential issues are far too costly.

Have your say!

What is your opinion on net neutrality? Do you think a tiered approach is acceptable or do you think an even playing field must be protected at all costs? Let us know by leaving a comment below.

Related articles

• Opinion.enta.net: Update: Net Neutrality – Is Legislation Necessary?

• Opinion.enta.net: Net Neutrality – Is Legislation Necessary?

Further information

• Techcrunch.com: Guess Who Else Disagrees With Google’s Net Neutrality Plan? Google In 2006

• PCR-online.biz: Google faces protests following net neutrality deal

• Digitaltrends.com: Verizon and Google’s Net Neutrality Agreement Explained: What Does it Mean to You?

• Telgraph.co.uk: Google accused of betraying internet golden rule in net neutrality row

• adamsmith.org: Global Player or Subsidy Junkie? Decision time for the BBC

Elsa Chen, General Manager

Whilst I agree in theory that abolishing the license fee would force the BBC into providing a more competitive and therefore hopefully higher quality service, I struggle to believe that broadband will be the catalyst for this.

Firstly despite the promised, yet now delayed, 2Mbps USC the UK is still a long way off enjoying truly ‘universal’ broadband, especially at the speeds required to easily support IPTV services. Besides which even if UK residents had universal access to high speed broadband they would still (currently) be legally required to purchase a license if they intend to watch programmes as they are broadcast (e.g. streaming). Although, a license is not required for ‘on demand’ services (e.g. BBC iPlayer).

Secondly, uptake of IPTV services is still relatively small when compared to the much larger audience tuning in through more traditional methods. A PointTopic report published in June 2010 showed that IPTV services represent less than 10% of the global broadband total. However the same report also showed dramatic growth of 47% during 2009. Further growth has been forecasted with the MRG (Multimedia Research Group) estimating that IPTV services and subscribers will reach 102 million in 2014 which equates to a 25% Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR).

• ISPReview.co.uk: UK BBC IPTV Boss Predicts Broadband TV Services to See Huge Growth

• ISPReview.co.uk: Broadband Internet Based Television Subscribers to Top 102 Million in 2014

However growth in the UK has been much slower mainly due to the lack of availability. For example the ongoing delays in Project Canvas. For broadband to truly kill the BBC license fee we would need to see a dramatic increase in demand for IPTV services in the UK. Whilst the popularity of these services continues to grow, I think the required increase to make it a true ‘license fee slayer’ is still a long way off.

And thirdly, even if current broadband speeds could support the unlikely dramatic increase in demand for online TV services many ISPs would struggle to manage capacity across their networks and/or would soon increase the pricing for their broadband services to cover the costs. In his report Mr Graham incorrectly describes the delivery of IPTV services as having ‘virtually zero transport costs’. However as the Internet industry well knows, this is far from accurate. There is in fact a significant cost in terms of the bandwidth required to deliver this content across providers’ networks.

• adamsmith.org: Global Player or Subsidy Junkie? Decision time for the BBC

During the recent World Cup many leading ISPs were discussing the noticeable increase in demand for IPTV services, the corresponding increase in demand for bandwidth and the effect this had on their networks.  At a time when ‘unlimited’ broadband packages are already under the spotlight from the ASA and where bandwidth costs are set to continue to rise, a significant increase in bandwidth demand would undoubtedly lead to ISPs redeveloping their broadband packages to cover their costs. So even if end users did manage to benefit from savings on their TV license they would likely be paying out just as much if not more for increased bandwidth from their broadband supplier. As the old saying goes, “give with one hand and take with the other!”

Old enemies

This is not the first time the BBC and ISPs have crossed paths. Back in 2008 BT Retail controversially argued that the BBC and other content providers should pay towards the increasing cost of bandwidth caused by new bandwidth hungry services such as the BBC iPlayer.

Quite rightly the BBC found this suggestion preposterous and refused to contribute. Entanet’s opinion article ‘ISPs vs BBC iPlayer – Missing the point?’ (opinion.enta.net: ISPs vs iPlayer: Round 2) suggested that instead of requesting monetary support from content providers, BT Retail should be applying pressure on its wholesale connectivity supplier (BT Wholesale) to reduce its increasing bandwidth costs.

It’s also not the first time that the BBC license fee and the ongoing development of broadband have been linked. The Government has previously confirmed plans to fund the delivery of the 2Mbps USC partly using left over funds from the digital switchover pot.

• opinion.enta.net: A Promising Start for the New Secretary of State

Not all doom and gloom

Despite the obvious and significant dent on the BBC’s income if they were forced to scrap the license fee, the proposal does have its benefits. As already mentioned this significant loss of income would force the BBC to become much more competitive and innovative. The BBC already enjoys success with iPlayer and is involved with the development of Project Canvas demonstrating they can successfully adopt new technologies and be innovative when required.

So to conclude, whilst abolishing the BBC license fee may not be such a bad idea in principle especially if it improves the quality of entertainment, the increased availability of broadband and demand for IPTV are highly unlikely to be the catalysts. More likely would be pressure from the industry watchdog who would be more concerned with ensuring the market remains competitive. Broadband, in its current state at least, is far from a license fee slayer.

Have your say

Do you think the growing demand for IPTV and universal availability of broadband will result in the end of the TV license fee? Or do you agree that IPTV is still very much in its infancy and popularity would need to significantly increase? Let us know your thoughts by leaving us a comment below.

Related articles

• opinion.enta.net: ISPs vs iPlayer: Round 2

• opinion.enta.net: A Promising Start for the New Secretary of State

• opinion.enta.net: Unlimited Broadband, Fact or Fiction?

Further information

• ISPReview.co.uk: Report Claims Universal UK Broadband WILL Kill the BBC TV Licence Fee

• BBC.co.uk: Q&A: The end of the licence fee?

• BBC.co.uk: TV licence fee should be scrapped, think tank says

• BBC.co.uk: BBC Licence fee ‘to fund superfast broadband’ roll-out

• TVLicencing.co.uk

Darren Farnden, Head of Marketing

To repeal or not to repeal?

It appears the proposed tackling of copyright infringement is still the main focus of unease within the DEA. At the end of June, Liberal Democrat MP, Julian Huppert, tabled an Early Day Motion (EDM) to repeal sections 9 – 18, the sections that cover the issue of illegal copyright infringement. Unfortunately the EDM gained little support and appears to have dropped off the radar.

• Ispreview.co.uk: Early Day Motion to Scrap UK Digital Economy Act Receives Tepid Support

A week or so later our new coalition government announced a new “Your Freedom” website via which members of the public can submit their own ideas for changes to our laws. Unsurprisingly our loveable DEA features strongly alongside bringing back the death penalty, repealing the smoking ban and repealing drugs prohibition.

• HM Government: Your Freedom Website – DEA
• ISPreview.co.uk: Government Your Freedom Site Offers Repeal of UK Digital Economy Act

Whilst the website insists that “[our] feedback will inform government policy and some of [our] proposals could end up making it into bills we bring before Parliament to change the law”, we’re not so convinced. After all ‘we’ continuously debated the DEB before the previous government decided to completely disregard the concerns of the industry most affected by this Act only to rush it through the wash-up, before they were ejected from power. Despite Mr Clegg’s initial agreement that the Act was indeed a ‘stitch-up’ and that “it badly needs to be repealed, and the issues revisited” the best he has come up with so far is this ‘freedom’ website.

• The Guardian: Repeal the digital economy act – Nick Clegg

Well I suppose there is one way to find out if they really will listen to the people – go to their shiny new freedom website and vote to repeal the DEA!

Judicial Review

So with an overwhelming lack of activity by the Government, two of the DEA’s most vocal opponents have decided to take matters into their own hands. TalkTalk and BT have mounted a judicial review through the High Court. The two ISPs are basing their case on a number of factors:

• Firstly, that the Act was rushed through with insufficient scrutiny. We agree!
• Secondly, they argue that the Act could damage “basic rights and freedoms” and could contravene EU laws regarding privacy.
• The two ISPs have also taken offence to the fact that, to start with at least, the new laws will only affect the largest ISPs with over 400,000 subscribers. They argue that this is unfair and will simply result in offending customers migrating to the smaller ISPs that are currently unaffected by the Act.
• Finally, they argue (as we have also done in the past) that ISPs are mere conduits of information and that they should not be expected to police the Internet. Indeed several existing EU and UK laws already utilise this principal.

• ISPreview.co.uk: UK Broadband ISPs TalkTalk and BT Mount Digital Economy Act Legal Challenge
• The Register: BT and TalkTalk threaten court to kill Mandybill

We agree with all of the points they have raised with an obvious concern over the rollout of the DEA to smaller ISPs, who will be less well equipped to cover the increased workload and costs expected to be experienced. However it should be noted that even if they win their judicial review this simply means the Act goes back to parliament to review again. It doesn’t necessarily mean anything will be scrapped or changed. If it got through once before, there is every chance it could get through unscathed again.

BT discussed their plans for judicial review at the Westminster e-Forum on 14th July. Unfortunately at the same forum the PRS (Performing Rights Society for Music) announced their latest ludicrous idea to implement a tax based on Deep Packet Inspection (DPI). Once again they mistakenly argue that ISPs are responsible for the content used by their subscribers and therefore should be able to implement a tax based on the level of illegal activity as identified via DPI. At the risk of repeating ourselves yet again- ISPs are not responsible for the content used by their customers, they are simply conduits of information, just like the Royal Mail. It would be wrong and unjust to ‘spy’ on the activity of our customers in order to impose a tax. The idea is simply absurd.

• ISPreview.co.uk: BT Claims it CAN Halt the UK Digital Economy Act and Rights Holders Seek ISP Tax

Whilst we’re waiting

Whilst we await the judicial review Ofcom have been busy putting together their copyright infringement code in line with the DEA. Unsurprisingly the first draft has also been subject to criticism, mainly from ORG (Open Rights Group). ORG’s major issue with the code is the reliability of the evidence and they call on Ofcom to readdress this. ORG’s executive director, Jim Killock, said “Ofcom’s proposal denies us the ability to check whether any of the evidence is trustworthy. Instead, copyright holders and Internet Service Providers will just self-certify that everything’s ok. If they get it wrong, there’s no penalty.” The initial review period for the code ends on 30th July. Only after this will we find out whether or not ORG’s concerns are taken into account.

• ISPreview.co.uk: ORG Calls on Ofcom to Start its UK ISP Copyright Infringement Code Again

Going Underground

As many within the industry have repeatedly warned, albeit to deaf ears, the impending implementation of the DEA’s methods for tackling illegal copyright infringement has resulted in a significant increase in the number of P2P file sharers using free and paid for encryption, in essence hiding their identity, making them harder to find and prosecute and forcing them ‘underground’. I hate to say it but – we told you so!

Rather than the DEA encouraging offenders to come clean and see the error of their ways it has simply resulted in the creation of an ’underground’ for persistent and more tech savvy users, making it much harder to track and prosecute the real villains.

• ISPreview.co.uk: UK Internet Copyright Crackdown Triggers Mass Move to FREE Encrypted P2P VPN

In other news…

It’s not just for the tackling of illegal copyrighting aspect of the DEA that has been hitting the headlines recently. The much anticipated 2Mbps USC has also become a cause for concern as the Government has announced delays. Initially the USC was expected to be completed by 2012 ensuring homes and businesses throughout the UK could achieve at least 2Mbps connectivity. Most spectators argued that 2Mbps was far too low especially with the emergence of next generation fibre based services but succumbed to the fact that at least this was a good starting point. I’m sure they are far less impressed to hear that their much required 2Mbps speeds will now be delayed until 2015.

• The Register: UK.gov abandons 2012 rural broadband pledge

So there you have it – a round-up of what’s been going on over the last few months. It seems we are still some way off our much needed repeal of the DEA despite the industry’s continuous requests and Nick Clegg’s initial support. As the deadline for implementation looms it looks like the best we can hope for is a successful judicial review which could still result in no or minimal changes or we have to hope the Government keeps its word this time and reviews the bills put forward via its “Your Freedom” site. Until then it looks like we remain stuck with Mandy’s legacy.

Regarding the delay of the 2Mbps USC, despite our initial concerns that 2Mbps would not be enough, at least it was a start. Those currently unable to achieve decent broadband speeds or located within broadband not-spots must feel disheartened by news of the delays and surely by 2015 the already criticised 2Mbps USC will be even less useful. The Government reportedly has plans to make the UK a world leader in the provision of next generation broadband by this time, so perhaps they have further plans up their sleeves that have not yet been revealed. I should hope so! We will never win that title if we are only able to provide a USC of 2Mbps in five years time.

Have your say!

What’s your opinion on the DEA? Are you also frustrated by the Government’s unwillingness to repeal the Act or do you think the repeal is unnecessary? What do you think about the USC delays? Let us know your thoughts by leaving us a comment below.

Related Articles

• Opinion: A promising start for the new secretary of state
• Opinion: Out with the old and in with the new
• Opinion: Election 2010 – Drawing the broadband battle lines
• Opinion: Digital Economy Bill: The end is nigh…

Further Information

• ISPreview.co.uk: Government Your Freedom Site Offers Repeal of UK Digital Economy Act
• Thinkbroadband.com: New government website sees calls for repeal of Digital Economy Act
• PC Retail: Growing support for Digital Economy Act repeal
• Thinkbroadband.com: BT and TalkTalk seeking judicial review of Digital Economy Act
• ISPreview.co.uk: Broadband Delivery UK Event Delays 2Mbps Internet Speed for all Until 2015
• Thinkbroadband.com: Universal broadband delayed until 2015
• PC Retail: Open Rights Group slams Ofcom draft code

Neil Watson, Head of Operations

So, what is it and what does it do?

Annex M is a new feature that is only available on ADSL2+ connections. It enables the broadband user to increase the upload speed of their connection by trading some of their download speed. It also guarantees an upstream throughput of 85% of the upstream sync rate between the hours of 8am and 5pm Monday to Friday, excluding UK public and bank holidays.

Entanet has been significantly involved in the trials of Annex M and has been very impressed by the results experienced. So far we have seen that, in the majority of cases, the actual performance of Annex M has been well beyond BT’s (and Entanet’s) original expectations as shown in the graph below.

[View slideshow]

Graph sourced from BT Wholesale.

It should however be noted that the Annex M service is only really viable for lines with an attenuation of less than 45db. Longer lines are likely to only gain a minimal upstream benefit compared to the amount lost in terms of downstream speed.

What benefits does it provide?

This service should be of interest to anyone requiring an increased upload speed. Whilst this could easily benefit residential end users interested in uploading their photographs to social networking websites such as Facebook and Flickr, gaming online or using FTP services to manage their own websites, it will of course be of particular benefit to business customers.

The increased upload speed better supports the requirements of remote workers and regional offices who regularly need to send and receive large files, download and upload information to and from company VPNs and use systems dependent on appropriate two way speeds such as SaaS and VoIP. The guaranteed hours of throughput (8am-5pm Monday to Friday) will also make this of significant interest to business customers.

Most importantly – How do you make money from it?

Annex M is an additional feature that an end user can choose to add to their ADSL2+ connection for an additional monthly fee. Entanet’s reseller partners can earn ongoing commission from this monthly charge.

Additionally, the availability of Annex M can help resellers promote and sell additional services that this feature supports such as SaaS and VoIP, enabling them to profit from additional revenue streams and maintain control of their customer relationships by providing a complete connectivity solution.

So, Is Annex M a replacement for SDSL?

No. SDSL provides symmetrical upload and download speeds of up to 2Mbps, whilst Annex M provides the ability to trade some of the download speed in order to achieve an increased upload speed. Both services are also only available on selected exchanges. Whilst the two services have obvious similarities, BT is keen to point out that Annex M is not an SDSL replacement. Annex M will only be available on BT’s 21st Century Network ADSL2+ connections while SDSL will remain supported on BT’s 20th Century Network.

What’s the verdict so far?

As we await its official launch we only have the results of the trials on which to base our verdict – but from what we have seen so far, we think it’s a success. You can see for yourself from the graph above that it is performing well above original expectations.

Have your say!

Well, we think Annex M is a positive addition to BT’s 21st Century Network portfolio but what do you think? Have you taken part in the trials and have an experience you would like to share? Or are you awaiting availability? Let us know your thoughts by leaving us a comment below.

Related Articles

• Entanet Opinion: Fuss ‘n’ Fibre

Further Information

• Entanet Corporate Website
• Wikipedia: ITU G.992.5 Annex M

• Entanet Opinion: Unlimited broadband: Fact or Fiction?
• Thinkbroadband.com: Advertising of broadband speeds and ‘unlimited’ usage to get overhaul

Sebastien Lahtinen

• ThinkBroadband.com: Advertising of broadband speeds and ‘unlimited’ usage to get overhaul

Why ‘unlimited broadband’ is not a viable business proposition in today’s economic climate

In the last few years, broadband service providers have been offering what they call ‘unlimited’ broadband services in the hope of attracting customers in what has been a growth market. This has been possible as, historically, capacity of ISP networks has not been a major limiting factor when the typical broadband service was anything up to 2Mbps.

Now that the average user is on a broadband service which can supply anything up to 8 or 16Mbps and services such as BBC iPlayer are taking off, we are starting to see pressure at peak times in various parts of the backhaul network.

There is a parallel we can see between the fixed line broadband and mobile networks. Until recently, some mobile operators offered ‘unlimited Internet’ with selected smartphone packages to attract users but with the increasing take-up of mobile video streaming and other high bandwidth applications, the network operators are under pressure to either increase network capacity, reduce usage of those who consume the most bandwidth or, in reality, probably a bit of both. Finally, even the ASA has decided to review the use of the term ‘unlimited’ which has been so frequently abused in the broadband industry.

So, why is ‘unlimited broadband’ a myth?

When dial-up Internet access was popular, the removal of the monthly subscription meant Internet access was advertised as ‘free’ even though in reality the service providers received some income from the call charges the user would pay their phone company. The user perceived they received a free service, even though they were paying for every minute they were online and thus restricting their own use.

When broadband took off at the start of the Millennium, we saw a return to the subscription model whereby users would pay a monthly fee and receive an ‘unlimited’ service; however this was only possible because in fact there was no great driver for mainstream high bandwidth applications like streaming video or peer-to-peer file sharing. Also, broadband connections were mostly ’0.5 meg’; slow compared to today’s standards.

Broadband connections run across a contended or ‘shared’ network, a bit like the road network. When you drive into any city during the rush hour, your journey will take longer because of congestion. As broadband speeds increased and new media content was developed, providers offering unlimited broadband plans started to suffer the effects of congestion, particularly at peak times. Some started to manage this by ‘traffic shaping’, the process of prioritising some types of traffic such as streaming video to help the user experience, similar to giving public transport priority by way of providing bus lanes.

Whilst consumers are attracted to the term ‘unlimited broadband’, they must realise that a flat rate does not encourage them to ration their use and eventually the broadband pipes will get to bursting point, requiring the ISP to upgrade them. The ISP of course will only do this if they can justify additional investment, usually by charging more for their broadband service.

Broadband usage will always be restricted by one or more of the following:

• Cost
• Bandwidth (capacity of the pipes)
• Caps (limited on how much you can use),
• Traffic management (slowing down heavy use/users)
• Lack of content to use the traffic
• Congestion

If we want our users to have 1Gbps connections, we have to accept that unlimited broadband cannot exist without some other way of controlling usage. It’s easy to deliver an ‘unlimited 1Mbps’ service as the user is restricted by the size of the pipe (bandwidth), but delivering a 1Gbps connection, one thousand times faster than 1Mbps (and not at 1000 times the cost) means restricting usage by one or more of the above levers.

If it is not cost, a hard cap or traffic shaping, then congestion will act as the natural control. Whilst the costs of upgrading the national infrastructure to meet the demands of broadband users is so high, we will not see truly unlimited broadband services available for any significant length of time. On occasion, when new technology or capacity is introduced, providers will have excess capacity which they can market as ‘unlimited use’ but when the cost of additional capacity becomes a significant factor, the user will end up paying for the bandwidth one way or another. In today’s economic climate, service providers cannot continue to invest in additional capacity to meet the needs of a few unprofitable customers who wish to pay the same flat fee as the average user but use up a disproportionate share of resources.

Sebastien Lahtinen, Co-founder of thinkbroadband.com.

Entanet’s Opinion
We agree with Sebastien and feel that a review of the ‘unlimited broadband’ terminology is well overdue. Over a year ago Entanet revised its broadband packages to reflect clear monthly usage options instead of split peak/off-peak allowances and an ‘unlimited’ option.

In late 2009 we also introduced traffic management measures as a means of delivering quality service consistency to all users. Whilst this didn’t go down well with excessive users, feedback from our channel partners indicated that it was a positive and successful move. We don’t believe that truly ‘unlimited’ packages will be sustainable in the UK broadband market in the medium term and it’s time consumers are made fully aware of that fact. If they’re not, they risk being seduced by ‘unlimited’ advertising only to be stung at a later date by FUP’s and hidden traffic shaping policies. 

About Sebastien Lahtinen
Sebastien Lahtinen is co-founder of thinkbroadband.com, previously known as ADSLguide.org.uk, a website that has provided its users with independent broadband analysis and news since the earliest days of UK broadband connections over 10 years ago. The site is best known for its broadband speed test, used by hundreds of thousands of users to check their speeds and for the largest list of broadband providers and packages.

Have your say!

What are your thoughts on this topical issue? Do you believe that unlimited broadband is still sustainable or do you agree that market forces have turned it into a modern myth? Let us know your thoughts by leaving us a comment below.

Further Information

• ISPReview.co.uk: UK Advertising Authority Investigates Unlimited Broadband and Speed Claims
• Microscope: ASA launches review of unlimited broadband offers
• uSwitch.com: ASA to investigate unlimited broadband claims
• ISPReview.co.uk: Ofcom Begins the UK Net Neutrality and Internet Traffic Management Debate

Elsa Chen, General Manager

Possibly most damning of all is the latest report out of Australia which brands the proposed legislation as “politically toxic”. This is not good news for Mr Conroy as he plans to introduce this highly controversial Bill before the next General Election in October.

• The Register: Australian firewall wobbles under pressure from all sides

So what’s wrong with the Great Aussie Firewall?

The ‘Great Aussie Firewall’, as it has been nicknamed, was originally proposed and positioned as a method of tackling child pornography on the Internet and was expected to operate in a similar way to our own IWF watch list, with ISPs blocking access to potentially harmful or offensive sites. Nothing wrong with that you may argue. However, there are two significant differences between the Aussie Firewall and our own IWF list. Firstly, our IWF list is not mandatory or state run and secondly, the scope of the Australian filter is far more wide reaching. This is the real concern for many opposing the Bill. The Australian filter is based on the RC Content (Refused Classification) list which is compiled by the Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA). Opponents to the proposed Bill state that only one third of the list is actually made up of child abuse content. The rest, according to the ACMA, includes bestiality, sexual violence, detailed instruction in crime, violence or drug use and/or material that advocates the doing of a terrorist act. However its opponents insist that the list extends beyond these.

• The Register: The Great Aussie Firewall is dead: Long live the firewall

Google has become known as a vocal opponent of the filter. Google Australia’s Head of Policy, Iarla Flynn, stated: “The scope of RC is simply too broad and can raise genuine questions about restrictions on access to information.”

She added: “RC includes the grey realms of material instructing in any crime from graffiti to politically controversial crimes such as euthanasia, and exposing these topics to public debate is vital for democracy…This type of content may be unpleasant and unpalatable but we believe that government should not have the right to block information which can inform debate of controversial issues.”

• The Register:  Aussie net censorship turning Chinese

• The Register: Google weighs in to Aussie firewall row

Mr Conroy undoubtedly did himself no favours on this issue when he allegedly announced his support of Google’s original compliance to China’s state run Internet censorship.  Fiona Patten from the Australian Sex Party expressed concern over Mr Conroy’s statements that he admired Google’s role in blocking content in countries such as China and Thailand, adding: “First he [Stephen Conroy] tells us that it is only Refused Classification  material that will be blocked and only via a complaint driven scheme. Now he is discussing getting Google to block search requests for what might be considered RC material.” It’s easy to see why concern is mounting over the scope of the filter.

• The Register:  Aussie net censorship turning Chinese

Whilst Mr Conroy may liken his proposed filtering scheme to that of the UK’s IWF, many of his critics are likening it much closer to China’s state run censorship, which we have covered in previous opinion articles (Entanet Opinion: Google flees Great Firewall of China).

Whilst we applaud Mr Conroy’s initial passion for attempting to stamp out the hideous wrongs of the Internet such as child pornography, we too have concerns over the final scope of the proposed filter and its actual effectiveness.

Even if the filter was restricted to the agreed scope of child pornography and the like, similar to the UK’s IWF, its effectiveness would come under scrutiny. Whilst many advocates of such schemes insist that by blocking such content accidental exposure is significantly reduced which in turn reduces the number of new offenders, the more determined and tech savvy offenders will be able to circumnavigate such filters. They offer little protection against those that are the most persistent and of most concern.

However, the reality is that the filter is not restricted to blocking just child pornography and is in fact more wide reaching. Whilst Mr Conroy’s current scope is worrying it could be even more concerning once a precedent is set, making it even easier for future Governments to expand the scope further. Australia could easily end up in a similar position to China.

Additionally, concerns have been raised regarding the costs involved in implementing such measures and the effect on performance. It’s expected that the ISPs will bear the costs, probably resulting in an increase in price for consumers; while the actual effect of every website needing to be checked by the filters will likely slow down the user’s experience. So is it really worth all of this when the real bad guys will still circumnavigate the filter anyway?

Is it the beginning of the end?

With support apparently dwindling fast, time running out and opposition growing (even from within his own party) – it’s surely time to ask…is this the beginning of the end for the Great Aussie Firewall? At the very least Mr Conroy’s timing certainly isn’t great, but then we thought that about our own DEB (Digital Economy Bill) and look what happened there! That managed to make it through the pre-election wash-up – maybe the Great Aussie Filter will have the same success. We will just have to wait and see!

Have your say!

We have discussed our view on this issue but what do you think? Do you agree that the proposed Bill is concerning or do you agree with Mr Conroy and believe it will succeed in making the Internet safer? Let us know your thoughts by leaving us a comment below.

Related Articles

• Entanet Opinion: Google flees Great Firewall of China
• Entanet Opinion: Google finally stands up to China

Further Information

• The Register: Google weighs in to Aussie firewall row
• The Register: Your internet policy sucks, US tells Aussies
• The Register: Oz gov in confusion over net filter plans
• The Register: Oz Attorney-General wants ISPs to hold data for 2 years
• The Register: Aussies face 10 year browsing lock-up
• Wikipedia: Internet censorship in Australia

Darren Farnden, Head of Marketing

But in this country, the legacy was – in the same timescale – a commitment to a paltry 2Mbps universal connection. Necessary, of course, but pitifully un-ambitious compared to a Korean goal 500 times faster.

It is a scandal that nearly 3 million households in this country still cannot access 2Mbps broadband speeds, and less than 1% of the country is able to access the internet using modern fibre optic technology – compared to an OECD average of around 10%.”

• Department for culture, media and sport: Media keynote speech

Is this the good news that we have all been waiting for? Do we finally have a minister involved in broadband that actually gets the point? Well that remains to be seen but the initial signs appear promising. Unfortunately, specific details surrounding the roll-out of ‘superfast broadband’ and its funding remain sketchy although more details have been promised in the Government’s consultation paper due to be released on 15th July. We’re looking forward to reading that document, believe me!

Whilst not going into specific details, Mr. Hunt did confirm that the remaining digital switchover fund will (as expected) be used to fund the roll-out into rural areas where the market is unable to viably reach. He also explained that the previous Government’s plans for an Independently Funded News Consortia (IFNC) would be scrapped and some of the funding that had been set aside for this project would instead be used to fund the broadband roll-out.

• BBC: Government lays out fast net plan

He is also fully aware of the digital divide issue and its potential to become significantly worse if the roll-out is left solely to market forces. He has announced three forthcoming trials of superfast broadband in so far unnamed rural areas in order to test the service and collate valuable data regarding the cost of implementation.

“These are projects that will not only benefit those living in these areas, but that will provide us with vital information about how we can best target government intervention and make next generation broadband viable in even the most challenging areas,” he said.

Promisingly he also appears to clearly understand the importance of broadband to the UK economy, stating: “Superfast broadband is not simply about doing the same things faster. It’s about doing totally new things – creating a platform on which a whole generation of new businesses can thrive.

The Federation of Small Businesses has estimated that a superfast network could add £18 billion to GDP and create 60,000 jobs. NESTA [the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts] thinks it could be ten times that – 600,000 new jobs.”

He concluded by setting a new ambitious goal, saying: “Our goal is simple: within this parliament we want Britain to have the best superfast broadband network in Europe.”

First impressions

Whilst we may not have had the review of the DEA that many of us were hoping for, it’s refreshing to learn that the new minister involved with the roll-out of the DEA at least seems to understand the industry and appears well informed and relatively knowledgeable which, after Mandelson, is a refreshing change. As first impressions go, Jeremy Hunt appears to have set off on the right foot. However, only time will tell if he really is the right man for the job (along with Ed Vaizey of course).

We hold out hope that upon the completed implementation of the un-ambitious 2Mbps USC the new Government will see fit to develop a further roll-out plan to bring much faster services to the UK. After all, if they wish to achieve their new goal of ‘Britain having the best superfast broadband network in Europe’, this will be essential.

Have your say!

What are your first impressions of the new minister and his broadband speech? Let us know your thoughts by leaving us a comment below.

Related Articles

• Entanet Opinion: Out with the old and in with the new
• Entanet Opinion: Fuss ‘n’ Fibre
• Entanet Opinion: Digital Economy Bill: The end is nigh…

Further Information

• ISPReview.co.uk: Jeremy Hunt Paper Launches Governments Superfast UK Broadband Plan
• Techeye.net: UK to have more ambitious broadband target
• ThinkBroadband.com: UK’s culture secretary lays out broadband plans

UPDATED: 12pm 11^th June 2010

Whilst we presumed this topic would be of significant interest to many of our readers, we didn’t expect the immense response it received. In the first three days of the poll going live we received a total of 123 votes, 94% of which stated that they support the strike and believe 2% to be a disgraceful offer. Only 6% of voters thought the 2% offer was reasonable. Most interestingly of all, when analysing the origination of the voters we noticed a significant proportion were using BT based IP addresses, leading us to speculate that many of our respondents may well be disgruntled BT employees. This wholeheartedly supports the findings of the CWU’s own polls and research and leads us to believe that we may be seeing strike action in the near future.