Net Neutrality

[Deezbeez]

The new CEO of Virgin Media, Neil Berkett, has openly stated in an interview that they think net neutrality is “a load of bollocks” and claimed they're already doing deals to deliver some people’s content faster than others. They would then put websites and services that don't pay Virgin in the "slow lane", meaning those sites would load slowly and cause most users to give up using them, feeling forced to use whatever Virgin wants to push through their network.

This is not the first time an internet provider infringes upon net neutrality, but it is the first time that an ISP so brutally states that they simply plan to limit internet access to a television-like system in which the access provider completely regulates the content you have access to.

Virgin Media has over 3.5 million customers in the UK and the real danger is that when they start applying this system to their network, all major internet providers around the globe will soon follow the trend. Because this is exactly what major ISP's have been wanting to do for years.

But we can stop it.

If the masses of the internet react against this, we will set an example of what happens when one provider tries to take away our freedom. We will make it very clear that any ISP who tries to infringe upon net neutrality will see its popularity go down the drain because the users don't accept it. And we'll see to it that only the providers who care about safeguarding our internet freedom have our support.

Speak out in any way you can and spread the word.

[Akiko_the_Elf]

That's fucked up.

Virgin is a little crazy. Damn you Richard Branson... *shakes fist*

[Jale]

Virgin and other high labels are "a load of bollocks".

[Zach]

This isn't even what net neutrality is about... Net neutrality is about the enforcement of laws from one country on the Internet and the debate about how it can't really be done fairly/effectively/legally.

All THIS is, is business politics BS.. and frankly no one is gonna boycott Virgin for anything... the age of mass boycotts was over a long time ago.. With millions upon millions of customers... even a couple million may not make big enough a dent..

The only way to combat this behavior is for a well funded smaller/better company to show up and run their own lines and undercut Virgins prices.

[Akiko_the_Elf]

Well, honestly, I don't think people are going to be terribly pleased with the notion that they can only visit certain parts of the internet.

I mean, that's just bad business. They may get more money from companies, but in the long run they'll be seriously limiting their customer base.

And I'm sure that smaller companies will get more business when certain sites refuse to pay. I mean, if youtube or myspace or facebook said "Fuck this noise, we're not paying you shit" then that would severely undercut Virgin's notion.

[Hrothgar]

the age of mass boycotts was over a long time ago..

I'm not sure I fully agree with you that massive boycotts don't hold their weight anymore, but I do think you're right about this particular situation. There just doesn't seem like there is much you can do in this situation.

Asides from that, this situation doesn't sit well with me at all. I do think if Virgin continues to run their business this way, a smaller company will be more likely to gain an advantage in the market, as Zach was hoping. I mean, this is the age of information, and people just aren't going to respond well to someone saying "No, you cant do that" I mean, if this leads to some form of censorship, then that is a bad sign of things to come.

[Akiko_the_Elf]

Exactly.

[Zach]

It is also important to note one thing... Virgin is not saying they are cutting off anyones access to view certain content.. They are simply saying that the companies or ISP's that use their lines will not get priority in terms of fast service, etc.. If they do not pay the fee..

The sites will still be able to load, but it may not load as fast as it could, and users might have to wait a bit while things load.. or have to buffer content streams with bigger buffers to compensate for the slower speed..

In a way it is no different than what home and business users do when they pay Internet Providers for their service package.. Some people don't want to pay $100+ a month for their Internet (example only) so they may opt to pay for a slower speed service.. Meanwhile the guy with a hole in his pocket with money to burn may feel like paying $200 for his 50Mbit internet or whatever.. (again example)

AT&T is gearing up (may already be I dunno?) to sell 15 - 25Mbit Internet to low-income homes.

We are still light years behind Japan though, who I understand has had 10Mbit+ Internet available to practically the whole country for quite some time, and at an affordable rate too...

Comcast started offering 50Mbit (5 MEGABYTES per second download) for $149.95 in AT&T Stores this month.

I would love to have even 10Mbit internet... but think about it.. 50Mbit... You could download a dual-layer DVD movie/game or whatever in just under 30 minutes.. 300MB/minute !! assuming you get close to top speed.. 9Gigabytes could be downloaded in roughly HALF AN HOUR !

[Jale]

I'm still happy with my 1 Mbps

[Hrothgar]

That's 50Mbit at best. I wonder if it ever gets close to running at optimum speed. Also, when downloading through torrents or peer 2 peer, if the person your uploading from has a slow connection, then your not gonna see it move that fast. Though, seeing even half of 50Mbit would be impressive.