[Metrobeans]

Preamble

At the moment internet service providers (like Virgin, Sky, BT etc.) give their customers a set speed of internet connection that doesn't change depending on the site they are using. This is net neutrality, but it is not currently enshrined in the law. What some internet providers want to do is start controlling the speeds they offer depending on the site - they want to become the gatekeepers of content on the internet. A big wealthy website like Facebook could pay a service provider like Sky to give their site faster internet speeds, while smaller sites would be stuck in the slow lane because they wouldn't be able to afford advantages. We think this is unfair and goes against the founding principles of the web. This Bill would prevent providers from being able to control the content on the internet through discrimination - they wouldn't be allowed to censor anything or become gatekeepers.

B479 - Net Neutrality Bill, TSR Liberal Democrat

Internet Neutrality Act 2012

An Act to prevent internet service providers from restricting consumers' access to any networks that participate in the internet.

BE IT ENACTED by The Queen's most Excellent Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Lords Temporal, and Commons, in this present Parliament assembled, in accordance with the provisions of the Parliament Acts 1911 and 1949, and by the authority of the same, as follows:

Part I: Net neutrality

(1) Internet providers must treat all content, sites and platforms equally.
(2) The same quality of service must be given to each.
(3) Consumers are entitled to:
(i) Access the lawful Internet content of their choice.
(ii) Run applications and use services of their choice, subject to the needs of law enforcement.
(iii) Connect their choice of legal devices that do not harm the network.
(iv) Competition among network providers, application and service providers, and content providers.

Part II: Enforcement
(1) The enforcement of this Act should be the sole responsibility of the Office of Communications.
(2) Violation of this Act should be punishable by a warning, three of which will lead to a tempory suspension of a provider's license.

Part III: Commencement, short title and extent

(1) This Act may be cited as the Internet Neutrality Act 2012.
(2) This Act extends to the whole of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, its Territories Beyond the Seas, and its Crown Dependencies.
(3) This Act comes into force on Royal Assent.

Explanation

"Network neutrality is the principle that Internet users should be in control of what content they view and what applications they use on the Internet. The Internet has operated according to this neutrality principle since its earliest days... Fundamentally, net neutrality is about equal access to the Internet. In our view, the broadband carriers should not be permitted to use their market power to discriminate against competing applications or content. Just as telephone companies are not permitted to tell consumers who they can call or what they can say, broadband carriers should not be allowed to use their market power to control activity online." ~Google

[thunder_chunky]

This was the version of the bill that supposed to be submitted. I hope enough people are still in agreement with this.

[toronto353]

Aye. Though I'd prefer the word lawful to be used in section 1.1. i.e. all lawful content.

[Observatory]

What evidence is there that companies will do what is set out in the blurb?

"Traffic shaping" does already exist but it doesn't take the form of invasive blocks on 'poor' websites, rather it is used to slow down torrents at peak times so that time-sensitive communication like VOIP, online games, etc. can be guaranteed stable connections. The assumption is that traffic shaping would destroy value for customers when economically this is nonsense: ISPs only benefit from traffic shaping that benefits most customers, making their product more valuable for the same cost, and this is the type that has emerged in practice.

Let me put it another way. It's generally considered that supermarkets will stock any product that is likely to sell enough to justify its shelf space. But shelf neutrality is not enshrined in law. A big wealthy sauce manufacturer like Heinz could pay a supermarket like Tesco to give their sauce more shelf space than Reggae Reggae Sauce because it was launched out of a shed by a guy who got on a TV show.

But in practice we don't see companies paying out of their profits to suppress competitors in this way, because any sufficiently successful product that can generate that sort of money is better off competing with the other brand. The supermarkets would only agree to do it if paid enough to compensate for all the sales of Reggae Reggae Sauce they would lose.

In my experience, net neutrality is pushed mainly by people who torrent a lot of stuff and don't like the fact that it might be slowed or blocked, presenting it is an equality concern when in fact they're a small minority of people who are using far more bandwidth than everyone else and slowing down other peoples' connections.


edit: Just on a practical consideration, withdrawing licenses is a hilariously disruptive enforcement method. That means that all the customers of that company are going to completely lose their connection. If you have to do this, a straightforward fine exceeding the value of the payments would make more sense.

[PierceBrosnan]

Aye.

This was posted from The Student Room's Android App on my HTC Wildfire S A510e

[That Bearded Man]

You could argue though that this means more popular websites I.e with more traffic, run slower than less popular sites, thus disadvantaging the more popular sites?

I'm no expert, so feel free to correct - I support this bill though.

[JPKC]

Aye.

[tehFrance]

No... you get a set speed however the server that hosts the site can not always give you that speed, so this is pointless... no.

[Birchington]

Aye.

[barnetlad]

I'm in favour of supporting the small man or woman and this helps. And I'm not on Facebook.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by tehFrance)
No... you get a set speed however the server that hosts the site can not always give you that speed, so this is pointless... no.

Err. Clearly you haven't read the Bill very well. Anyway, what you're saying is highly uncommon. Much more often it's the other way around. Most servers are connected to backbone Internet lines, of at least 100mb/s usually (however some are 50mb/s).

Try finding an Internet Service Provider that actually provides those speeds for ordinary households. Good luck.

[Life_peer]

Aye.

[RoryS]

Aye.

[Lipvig]

Aye

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by xXedixXx)
Err. Clearly you haven't read the Bill very well. Anyway, what you're saying is highly uncommon. Much more often it's the other way around. Most servers are connected to backbone Internet lines, of at least 100mb/s usually (however some are 50mb/s).

Try finding an Internet Service Provider that actually provides those speeds for ordinary households. Good luck.

Virgin Media? http://www.virginmediapeople.com/100mb/

[JPKC]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Virgin Media? http://www.virginmediapeople.com/100mb/

The ISPs' provision rarely matches the speed advertised. I doubt I've ever had the capacity 'offered' by Virgin.

[chrisawhitmore]

(Original post by JPKC)
The ISPs' provision rarely matches the speed advertised. I doubt I've ever had the capacity 'offered' by Virgin.

True, I'm on 'up to 40mb' at the moment and I'm currently getting 31.6 (better than I thought though)

It would be interesting to see what the average discrepancy between the quoted and actual speed is. Mine is at 79.2% of the quoted speed.

[Observatory]

The stated capacity is a theoretical maximum, with the actual maximum practical speed varying for every individual house. That will be the same for business customers too since the source of the loss is line attenuation, not Virgin arbitrarily deciding to give you less speed than advertised. The only way around it is to pay to have the line replaced with a higher quality one that can support the speed you want.

[jesusandtequila]

(Original post by JPKC)
The ISPs' provision rarely matches the speed advertised. I doubt I've ever had the capacity 'offered' by Virgin.

No, servers rarely run at 100% speed. This includes backend servers, so my point still stands.

[xXedixXx]

(Original post by jesusandtequila)
Virgin Media? http://www.virginmediapeople.com/100mb/

Yeah, you will not get anything like 100mb. That's the point.