
"Innovation"
Calling services "innovations" when both messaging and video calling have been around for nearly two decades shows a dreadful ignorance from someone who has a responsibility for managing ISPs !
Brussels' vice president Neelie Kroes hopes to stop European ISPs from supposedly being anti-competitive by blocking or throttling rival services. The commissioner, whose brief includes the digital agenda in the EU, lobbied the European Parliament today with her "net neutrality" proposals. Kroes claimed that "many Europeans" …
It is worth bearing in mind that many ISP contracts have minimum terms with very expensive early terminations, so shopping around for the best service is not quite so easy. Point is switching to better service should be easy and without heavy financial penalties.
So how is it a bad thing or nanny state if the businesses actually need to be open and honest about the service they are selling and it having to be easy to switch should the service not live up to the expectation?
The commission is the executive and primary legislative branch of the EU's government, it seems fair to mention that they're appointed given how much power they wield and how little control and oversight we, the peoples of Europe, have over their activities. It's hardly frothing.
Comparing that to a journalist's "unelected" position isn't even apples and walnuts, never mind oranges.
I do wonder if the convoluted structure of the EU's legislative, executive and judiciary arms was set up precisely to obfuscate its true workings.
The ECHR, that wonderful organ preventing us from deporting criminals and terrorists, is nominally separate from the EU proper, via the Council of Europe. The European Commission - the leadership - doesn't "legislate", inamuch as it cannot pass laws. It just writes those laws and submits them to the European Parliament. They in turn cannot "legislate" as we understand that term in our democracy - the EP can only rubberstamp what is put before them by the unelected and unaccountable commissioners.
Which all makes it remarkably easy for EU apparatchiki to pass the buck when questioned as to exactly what they're up to - or, indeed, for commentards to post snide one-liners and get a massive bite in return.
"I do wonder if the convoluted structure of the EU's legislative, executive and judiciary arms was set up precisely to obfuscate its true workings."
This is partially true, but not in the way one would immediately suspect of hiding its ABUSES OF UNACCOUNTABLE POWER from the people of Europe. The EU's legislative and executive functions are as convoluted as they are mainly to prevent the supra-national EU from exerting its authority over the individual nation states and preventing any individual or small bloc of nation states from dominating the rest of the EU.
The EP generally has a markedly different make-up from the national parliaments (e.g. UKIP about the win the UK EP elections despite being unlikely to gain a single seat in UK general elections), so the national governments don't want to give an institution dominated by protest votes any real power [in turn guaranteeing perpetual protest votes...], so the EP cannot propose legislation.
The European Commission is dominated by the executives of the individual nation states, with each commissioner proposed by their national government, and only they can propose legislation - guaranteeing that any European legislation has the OK from the national executives. Each nation wouldn't want the other nations to be able to propose things willy-nilly, so they're in turn held in check by the EP.
And, to top it all off, the Commission and Parliament both are held in check by the European Council, who hold the only real power in the EU.
While it may sound absurd, the whole system has been effectively designed to ensure the EU can't really do anything that doesn't have widespread support or explicit treaty authorisation. That might sound pretty stupid, but it allows the EU to do the things it's supposed to do (free trade, free movement, standardisation etc.) while precluding the hazard of a headstrong European apparatus suddenly becoming all activist and trying to further, for example, a federalist agenda. Those matters are reserved for the nation states, as is only right.
Conflating the EU with the ECHR is just stupid. They're completely separate bodies. The Council of Europe is almost twice the size of the EU and the convention predates all EU precursor bodies bar Benelux and the ECSC. It's on a completely different treaty framework.
"When an EU Commissioner pushes through laws and regulations, you can't 'dip in' and only obey those which appeal to you."
EU Commissioners don't have the power to "push through laws and regulations". They hold the sole power to propose European legislation, but it is up to the parliament to vote on it and the individual nations (as the European Council) to accept it.
Also, for the record, while it is technically an appointment, they're not entirely unelected - each Commission must be approved by the Parliament and each member is proposed by a corresponding nation in the Council, whose representative there is there through right of election.
Yet commissioners are the only part of the EU that can propose legislation. If the vote looks like it's going against them, they can withdraw the legislation without penalty before having a second bite of the apple.
Hmm. Voting more than once to obtain the desired result. That doesn't sound like the EU, does it, Seamus?
"withdraw the legislation without penalty before having a second bite of the apple."
I'm struggling to see why you'd object to an unpopular piece of legislation being withdrawn, re-worked and then re-submitted. What point is there in continuing to spend time and money on something that won't get passed?
> What point is there in continuing to spend time and money on something that won't get passed?
Yes, indeed.
What point is there in spending (in particular) your money on something that won't get passed.
Better retire it, let if fester in the cellar for 4 month, add a paragraph, then table it again.
That way your money will be spent more wholesomely, and it might even pass this time.
What is outrageous is repeatedly submitting something almost if not entirely identical until it passes by accident or through boredom.
Which has happened - and not just in the EU. Teresa's going for the 3rd or 4th attempt on the snoopers charter, essentially unchanged from the first time it got shot down.
At what point does it become taking the piss?
Commissioners are put forward by national governments. Their role is appointed by the President who is elected by the parliament whose members are elected by the nations' electorate (if they can be bothered turning out)
The EU parliament then approves the team as a whole or not.
Indirectly elected or selected maybe. And the usual warnings over horsetrading/national interests/buggins term etc.
"I didn't expect Farage-style frothing at El Reg"
While putting it on a par with Farage's particular brand of frothing, Euroscepticism is par for course in vulture central's editorial tone, along with climate change scepticism, calling for the execution of all "freetards", calling for the execution of all those who think using a term like "freetard" might just be a little offensive, winding up Stephen Fry, regularly mocking Apple as a Foxconn reseller, reducing Google to an ad man on a power trip etc. etc.
Not to knock the quality of the journalism, of course, but the tabloid tone should surprise absolutely no one here.
No but when you buy a carton of milk you buy it outright at a cost that reflects it's production costs plus profit etc. Ask your ISP for a 50mb leased line and see if its the same price as a contended 50mb cable connection, I doubt it. I think she misunderstands some of the situation.
Net neutrality is important and some network management is prudent i.e. at times when there is congestion (and only then) prioratising time sensitive packets make sense. As does upgrading the capacity when that happens. Blocking or degrading voip or streaming video because it's eating your bottom line isn't ok. Telco and cablecos seriously need to wake up and realise that rather than trying to kill hulu and skype et al they should compete. Some people still want a linear service for tv and thats fine, but folks have also tasted on demand streaming from a decent catalog. If they got their heads of out their behinds and built a new product, say 40-60 bucks a month, on demand, a decent ad free (hulu I'm looking at you) catalog of current HD tv and film then I would happily pay it and they would still get their money. Try and degrade netflix and I switch isp's. The regulator still needs to act for those unable to switch though.
Can't understand how Vodafone and O2 get away with deliberately degrading their prepay packages unless you buy their Skype add-on package. Useless regulators as always! I thought the problem was coverage. After troubleshooting on forums I realized the real culprit. But by then it was too late as I was stuck with a useless dongle... Anyone else get taken in by this practice?
"Just spoke to an "o2 guru": he says I CAN use Skype with my o2 dongle on a laptop."
Be careful with this. There is a vast difference between the promises of the in-store staff, customer support and actually test-driving a dongle in practice in your region.... Three possible explanations:
1. They're only blocking it in my region: ROI.
2. With competition from Three, they've relaxed the restrictions since I last checked.
3. Wrong info given by in-store staff. I only test-drove a Vodafone modem, it blocks Skype for sure.
Are you an O2 employee David1? O2 in-store staff took me aside and blatantly said 'we know Three offer Skype, but basically we match our deals directly with Vodafone. So if they're blocking we're blocking'. How much more market research do I have to do? I already got stuck with one useless dongle! If you can't rely on O2 support or the in-store staff both, who has more time for research? I don't work for a consumer magazine.
No, just a user of their dongle, mobile phone service and wired broadband. As a matter of fact I am very cross with them for selling out their wired broadband to Murdoch. However I have successfully used Skype with the dongle, and have found their support services are pretty good.
Sounds as if you were misled by one of their in-store people.
As the name implies, an Internet Service Provider should provide access to the Internet, email service and bandwidth. No other services should be offered so there are no competitive issues. Phone, TV, IPTV should all be independent and never a subsidary of the ISP.
The ISP's should not be allowed (or demanded/expected) to do anything else. On the other hand, Government should be prevented from making outrageous demands on ISP's (filtering etc) because that is as bad as the ISP doing traffic shaping.
The fact is that SOME QoS is required as you just cannot have people hosting websites on residential service, or other crazy bandwidth hogging stuff.
I would like to see some greater upload speeds provided as well as some modicum of usable service responsibility by the provider.
"ISP's should only provide access and bandwidth...nothing else! "
How would that work and what possible benefit could it bring? An ISP that bundles a variety of services together only needs to take a profit once. If you buy your Internet bits from five different companies, they all want a profit. What you're talking about is reducing choice, not increasing it. I can choose today to buy my Internet from a cheap as chips supplier who offer very little, or an inclusive one that offers all the bells and whistles. The important thing is that it's my choice.
I think you're mistaking QoS with contention. You can have a 50Mbps connection the the Internet that's all yours, but you'll pay hundreds and hundreds of pounds a month for it, maybe more if you live somewhere remote.
Obviously you don't get my point which is relative to the article where their COMPETING SERVICES create traffic shaping issues. I want an ISP to provide me with the internet and I will buy my other "services" where I want them from NOT BUNDLED IN SOME RETARDED INCOMPREHENSIBLE FUCKING PACKAGE WHERE I PAY OUT THE ASS FOR CRAP I DO NOT WANT OR NEED!!!!!!
I'll be happy to pay Pandora, Hulu, Netflix, whatever VOIP Phone provider etc a reasonable fee rather than give it to Verizon, Time Warner, Comcast, et al.
This ALSO lets the "little guys" have a real business model, completely independent of providing me with INTERNET SERVICE! If I can finally get competition for INTERNET SERVICE then the price goes down.
Your definition of Internet (webpages+mail) falls a little short.
Everybody -everybody except you, it seems- sees the Internet as a comms channel that can give them access to any kind of information in any digital format. Saying that Internet is just webpages and email nowadays is delusional.
We pay the ISPs for access to the whole Internet, not to some subset arbitrarily chosen by an interested party.
"We pay the ISPs for access to the whole Internet, not to some subset arbitrarily chosen by an interested party."
I've got a 50Mbps connection. Why can't I get 50Mbps to livehotyaks.mn? My ISP's fault, or the Mongolian ISP's fault? As for Kroes' comment-
"After all, when you buy a carton of milk, you don't expect it to be half-empty:"
Yet when you buy a carton of cornflakes or soap powder, it usually is half-empty. Maybe ISP's should just add a label saying 'packets may settle during transit'. Or peering.
"I've got a 50Mbps connection. Why can't I get 50Mbps to livehotyaks.mn? My ISP's fault, or the Mongolian ISP's fault?"
Which has nothing to do with the problem at hand. The domain owner hired some capacity from the Mongolian ISP, who agreed to host the server and provide a given amount of bandwidth. If say bandwidth is too small because the domain owner is a cheapskate or because the Mongolian ISP connects to other networks using carrier pigeons, it's up to them to negotiate a solution, update the infrastructure or change ISPs.
What we are discussing here is your local ISP acting as a robber baron from the Middle Ages, and imposing a tax on whatever data goes into their network. This is bad for the users, the content creators and companies that try to provide services through Internet.
Want to watch youtube or similar video services in HD? Pay $XX. Skype? Pay $YY. Streaming music? Ditto. And so on, and so on...
We, as users, hire bandwidth capacity from the ISPs, and the owner of the domain hires capacity to the Mongolian ISP. Any charges/locks/limitations by your local ISP on the kind of data you download are just double dipping and, basically, a scam.
Reading is not your speciality is it? Been in a box for ten years then, no where did I say anything about limited access in fact I said "an Internet Service Provider should provide access to the Internet, email service and bandwidth"
"Internet Access" is in fact unfetterered, unregulated, uninterfered with, "access" to the internet. ANYTHING ON IT IS INCLUDED YOU DOLT! For the retarded pedants out there, that includes the whole fricking Internet
Is that really so hard to understand? Did I say web pages, no.. did I say only email, no...
Can't we settle this like Champagne and sparkling wine?
If you supply a connection to the whole Internet you are an ISP.
If you supply a connection to some online services but not others you are a twat, err I mean Nonspecific Online Internet Services Provider. AKA a NOISP...
At the event this morning, Neelie Kroes was given an open letter signed by 20 European CEOs asking to defend the open internet. You can find the letter here http://www.reddit.com/r/POLITIC/comments/1fn1r7/net_neutrality_open_letter_by_european_ceos_to/
"Network access providers must be prohibited from blocking, degrading, hindering (including through application and/or service specific price surcharges) and throttling targeted at applications, services, content or protocols."
That's a shame. ISPs better turn off their DDOS protection systems as they throttle applications, services, content and protocols. ISPs better not even hint at offering QoS to allow better quality voice, video or real-time application usage. That would allow better speech or video quality, or even improved twitch gaming, but would sadly violate 'net neutrality'. Too bad the 'net will have to stay best efforts
When Microsoft was pulling away Messenger. A, in my opinion, real innovating service (to some extend of course) in that it could be easily used on both desktop and telephone and was actually a very widely used service. Both for VOIP (like) services as well regular instant messages.
Yet all that had to go in favour of Skype where it seems that the only way to make "full" use of it is if you get yourself a premium subscription or buy into lots of Skype credits. Of course I did the total opposite; the moment Messenger stopped working I removed it and Skype and that was the end of it.
Now I'm looking for a feasible, non-intrusive, replacement. The webclient (Outlook.com) is somewhat usable, but not just quite a good setup.
But Kroes isn't one one of them. Her proposals are pretty consistent in trying to protect the consumer.
If Outfits like Comreg and Ofcom were not simply revenue raising arms of Treasury and mostly supportive of the Status Quo of BT, Sky, Eircom and the Mobile operators and did real protection of Spectrum and Consumer then there would be no need.
Mobile (none is Broadband) and Fixed Broadband is dishonestly marketed by almost all sellers and some don't get it that an ISP just provides a connection.
Of course a lease line or Data Centre connection isn't the same as a Domestic cable connection. The ISPs should be honest about availability, Contention, typical and minimum speeds at peak and off peak times. They should not Block or throttle any Public Internet Traffic.
They are entitled to sell EXTRA services (their own VOIP, Switched Video, Broadcast Video, Hosting, IPTV etc) but any QOS on that should only affect the person subscribing and be made clear before sign-up (i.e. your connection is up to 12Mbps with priority for your IPTV subscription, this is subtracted from your 50Mbps down and 2Mbps up 20:1 contended package with typical minimum speeds of 15Mbps at peak times and 45Mbps at off peak, you might only see 50Mbps at 3AM in the morning if not watching IPTV)
The ASA and ASAI are also complicit in the lies peddled to Consumers. Lets to start with make it illegal to call Mobile Internet, Mobile Broadband.
Broadband: Minimum of 512K (or 2M depending on Jurisdiction) and "always on" (perhaps brief reconnection on DSL once a day). Mobile 21Mbps total sector speed within 250m of mast, Minimum is 120k or no connection. It can refuse to connect or drop connections with as few as 10 users. With 5 users simultaneously streaming per user speed can be under 1Mbps.
Broadband, low latency, low packet loss to ISP router: Mobile is extremely variable up to 1000ms, can be 50% packet loss to ISP router!
Mobile is often Proxied to save Public IPs and for easier control. Broadband you have no proxy and can run low bandwidth personal services without annoying ISP (i.e. a Public Web Server is usually not allowed or sensible), Mobile typically you can't run ANY services, not even remotely turning the oven on.
You seem to have missed the bit where it was a Euro Bird who started the latest hike in insurance and pension costs when she decided that gender should not be used to as part of risk calculations. Strangely enough rather than costs leveling out they all went up.
When they are good they are very very good but when they are bad........
"Services like Voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) or messaging services - like Skype or WhatsApp - offer real innovation for consumers. But some ISPs deliberately degrade those services, or block them outright, simply to avoid the competition." -- My ISP does horrible things to SSH connections and their rationale behind this was that SSH was a "business" technology and I was subscribed to a "home" broadband package. Give us more money and we will give you your SSH connections back, mwah ha ha.