Commission urged to force transparency on network traffic shaping

The European Commission has been told that it should force companies to define themselves either as neutral internet service providers or as "managed services" that give priority to content providers that they are in a business relationship with. The Commission has published the findings of a consultation (6-page / 140KB PDF) …

[Lionel Baden]

wtf

"Operators and ISPs argue that they should be allowed to determine their own business models and arrangements with other commercial parties,"

Nobody is saying you cant !!!

YOU HAVE TO TELL THE CUSTOMER YOU LYING DEVIOUS BASTARDS !!!

If any ISP provider may be reading the comments here please re-read below.

The European Commission has been told that it should force companies to [IMPORTANT BIT}define [/IMPORTANT BIT] themselves either as neutral internet service providers or as "managed services"

[Lionel Baden]

I'm sorry everybody for my outburst.

Ive just taken my valium so ill calm down now.

[Raumkraut]

Best idea I've heard so far

If a company wants to discriminate against certain kinds of traffic, and supply such "managed services" to customers, they should not be allowed to use the term "Internet" to describe the service or their company.

They may not be, strictly speaking, walled-gardens, but they'd certainly have a hedge.

[andy, bacup]

re: Best idea

In fact, why not a strict division where you can either:

a) be an ISP (as a common carrier without any commercial interest in *what* is carried) or,

b) you can sell content on a per-view basis,

but you can't do both.

[Red Bren]

Deliver what you sell

"Though the governments, companies, trade bodies and consumer associations that responded did accept that ISPs had to engage in some "traffic shaping" to ensure a fair division of resources to users"

I don't accept this. UK broadband is sold purely on the basis of speed and advertised with the promise of enabling data intensive activities such as audio/video streaming and downloading. If everyone wants to use their connection to do the things they were promised it could do at the same time, then ISPs should either deliver the service as sold or change the way they sell it.

[thecakeis(not)alie]

One more time...

Dear entire telecommunications industry,

SHUT THE SWEET MONKEY FUCK UP AND BE DUMB PIPES ALREADY.

Signed,

The entire bloody world.

[John Smith 19]

Sounds so simple even a European government Minister could understand the position.

I like it.

Now let's see if it can get made into EU law.

RegisterFail, Raumkraut and AC @12:51

Damm right. While it maybe there are only a few *hardware* infrastructure providers in any one country there are *many* more ISPs. There *is* a free market so let the net filtering/snooping/traffic shaping ones with partnership agreements *have* a shot at taking over most of the market.

But make sure that *any* potential subscriber can find out *exactly* what "service" they will be getting and on what basis it will be delivered.

[Daniel B.]

People pay ISPs for the bandwidth.

People usually pay for 2Mbps, 5mBPS, 10Mbps and such, that's what they should get. If someone wants to sell internet services with some kind of traffic shaping like prioritising certain kind of traffic over others, they should state they're doing so.

In the case of those telcos that are switching to full-IP networks, and are offering their own phone services & such through the same pipe (FTTP?), those should not include the dedicated bandwidth for such services in the "internet" offering. Say, you get 30Mbps, but 20Mbps are for voice and IPTV, 10Mbps for "unrestricted internet", then it should be sold as that. the 10Mbps part should be governed by the dumbpipe policy.