Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

First European Provider To Break Net Neutrality 343

Posted by kdawson
from the deliver-what-was-paid-for dept.
Rik van der Kroon writes "Major Dutch cable provider UPC has introduced a new network management system which, from noon to midnight, for certain services and providers, caps users' bandwidth at 1/3rd of their nominal bandwidth (Google translation; Dutch original here). After the consumer front for cable providers in The Netherlands received many complaints about network problems and slow speeds, UPC decided to take this as an excuse to introduce their new 'network management' protocol which slows down a large amount of traffic. All protocols but HTTP are capped to 1/3 speed, and within the HTTP realm some Web sites and services that use lots of upstream bandwidth are capped as well. So far UPC is hiding behind the usual excuse: 'We are protecting all the users against the 1% of the user base who abuse our network.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

First European Provider To Break Net Neutrality

Comments Filter:
  • What they mean: (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:10PM (#29165893)

    'We are protecting all the users against the 1% of the user base who use our network.'

    • Re:What they mean: (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Romancer (19668) <romancer&deathsdoor,com> on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:30PM (#29166065) Journal

      Kinda like the old overbooking of flights.

      I used to see the excuse:

      We overbook our flights to save you money because some poeple don't show. So for that 1% that hurt our business we have to lie and sell you a service that we cannot possibly deliver on.

      Just like the ISPs that overbook their network by selling a service that they could never deliver if all the poeple decided to show up at once and try and use their tier of 10/1.5 or whatever they pay for every month.

      So the bet that not everybody will use the service doesn't pay off when some people regularly try and use what they have purchased. They get turned away at the gate or get 1/3rd of the service they paid for or even just get cut off. All for paying for a service and thinking that they have a right to use it.

      • Re:What they mean: (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Idiomatick (976696) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @05:17PM (#29166379)
        If they overbook your flight they give your money back. If ISPs paid back w/e % you had taken away we'd see less complaints.
        • by genner (694963)

          If they overbook your flight they give your money back. If ISPs paid back w/e % you had taken away we'd see less complaints.

          or they book you first class on the next flight.

          • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

            by Jared555 (874152)

            What happens if the next flight is overbooked? Eventually you would have to have a plane dedicated to the people who have been waiting.

            • No what would happen is that they'd just keep pushing everyone backwards, until towards the end of the day some guy who was supposed to leave at 11 p.m. gets to ride on the near-empty midnight plane instead.

              It's kinda similar to how the doctor's office works, shoving everyone backward in time but still managing to see all his patients' that same day, even if the last patient doesn't leave until 2 hours past the official 5 p.m. closing time.

              • No what would happen is that they'd just keep pushing everyone backwards,

                What they actually do is ask for volunteers at each flight that are OK with being bumped. If you are bumped one flight someone else at the second flight may accept being bumped so you can fly, or you can accept being bumped again for additional compensation. Of course if they think that chain might occur they start out asking for people willing to be bumped a whole day or so to avoid the extra cost of multiple compensations.

        • Actually they don't have to unless you ask. You see, what you bought wasn't a ticket for a specific flight from point A to point B, although that's how you think of it. What you bought was a ticket for a flight from point A to point B, and you also made a reservation to use that ticket on a specific flight. If for any reason you can't make that flight, you can always make a reservation for a later flight on that route and use the ticket you have. I learned that decades ago when circumstances (not involv
          • by Kjella (173770)

            Sounds like somebody's been flying business or full-flex economy. The regular tickets definately either don't let you do that at all or against a high fee.

        • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

          by L4t3r4lu5 (1216702)
          Oblig. Penny Arcade ref: http://www.penny-arcade.com/comic/2009/5/1/ [penny-arcade.com]
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by slamb (119285) *
        I don't think that's accurate. For starters, your description of the airline's policy is wrong:

        We overbook our flights to save you money because some poeple don't show. So for that 1% that hurt our business we have to lie and sell you a service that we cannot possibly deliver on.

        They sold the tickets to those 1% and get the money whether they show up or not. A more accurate statement would be "we overbook our flights to (save you money and/or make more profit) because we can - 1% of people don't show up, an

      • Re:What they mean: (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Mr Z (6791) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @06:01PM (#29166709) Homepage Journal

        Fun facts: If everyone in your neighborhood with a land line picked up the phone right now and tried to make a call, probably only 10% to 20% of them would succeed. If everyone in the average American suburb all hopped in their car and tried to get on the road to the nearest Interstate, it'd be gridlock. Traffic would move at speeds no where near the posted limits. We're surrounded by shared resources with capacity that reflects typical usage with a reasonable amount of head room for "normal" peaks, but is far from being able to support the maximum theoretical demand.

        Airlines overbook because a certain %age of customers don't show up, and that %age is large enough and stable enough that it makes sense to do so. When too many people do show up for a flight, the airline pays penalties (in the form of travel vouchers and upgrades), so there's incentive to be conservative in the practice. Everyone benefits overall, though. More people get flown from point A to point B. If the airlines sell more seats on a given flight, then they can charge less per seat too.

        ISPs are no different. They purchase bandwidth based on a model of "reasonable" network usage and how many subscribers they have. The major difference, though, is that it's very easy for someone to fall well outside the "reasonable" traffic usage. It's quite possible for 1% of the users to take up the majority of the network bandwidth. And I can see this being considered "unreasonable," and the ISP taking steps to make sure that the other 99% of users have a reasonable experience.

        What I don't like is that ISPs can advertise something as "unlimited" or as running at a certain speed, when it clearly is limited, and the advertised speed is only a peak speed available in small doses. At least airlines are required to disclose their overbooking policy.

        • by Old97 (1341297)
          I wish I had some mod points to give you. Spot on.
        • Re:What they mean: (Score:4, Interesting)

          by Jared555 (874152) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @06:27PM (#29166933)

          And of course, everyone in that 1% has to be someone abusing the network.... There is no such thing as a household with multiple people using different computers wanting to watch legal videos.

          Something that always amazes me is that a university with 20,000 students on a 100mbit (or sometimes less) line can manage to do network shaping, etc. correctly but ISPs in even small towns cannot.

          One major thing that the university I go to does: you have to OPT IN to file sharing access. No big deal, you just say I need it for whatever legal reason and they activate it.

          This would also reduce the random kids connecting to file sharing networks (their parents, in theory, would have to activate it).

          It would also reduce the number of people who break into some unsecured wifi network to download because there wouldn't be as many networks that had the ability to file share.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Mr Z (6791)

            For a subscriber to use such a disproportionate amount of bandwidth, such a bandwidth peak would have to be a sustained bandwidth peak.

            There really should be different plans to cater to the hard-core users vs. the typical users. You have your average web surfer browsing You-Tube occasionally, or downloading the latest stuff off of iTunes or what have you, and then you have the hardcore folks that are streaming HD non-stop. Makes sense to me that you'd want to move the latter guys onto a different plan wit

        • Re:What they mean: (Score:4, Interesting)

          by noidentity (188756) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @09:37PM (#29168147)

          ISPs are no different. They purchase bandwidth based on a model of "reasonable" network usage and how many subscribers they have.

          Read the summary again: they aren't throttling all traffic for a given protocol; they're throttling traffic based on what site it's to. This nicely sets the stage for the next phase: charge said sites to un-throttle traffic. Fortunately said sites can play the game too and put up a special page to users connecting from this ISP explaining that the site is slow because the ISP is making it so, and that they can get better service by switching ISPs.

        • Re:What they mean: (Score:4, Insightful)

          by johannesg (664142) on Monday August 24, 2009 @02:32AM (#29169939)

          There are some major differences between all those shared resources you list, and those of ISP's though:

          1. With ISP's, you pay for different speeds. If you pay for (say) 1000kb/s but it is known in advance that you will only ever receive 333kb/s, that effectively means they have just raised their prices by a factor three.

          2. Rather than giving everyone _at least_ one third of their paid-for speed, and then spreading the remainder evenly over the various customers, you are simply capped. In fact I suspect that even that promised one third of the paid-for speed is on an "if available" basis.

          3. The phrase "abuse" is thrown around lightly, and there is a clear undertone of "illegal". These are probably the kind of people downloading illegal movies and childpr0n all day long! Cap them, before they do even more harm! Or... Maybe they have subscribed to a legal movie download service? One that competes with UPC's own TV offerings? (UPC is actually a cable TV provider, that also does internet on the side!)

          Simple fact: UPC is advertising certain speeds [www.upc.nl], but not delivering them. And it's not even because of oversubscription (as in the examples you gave), but simply because they don't want to.

    • What I find funny is if my ISP did that, capped stuff to 1/3rd the speed... It'd still be twice as fast as the DSL service I paid the same price for a little while ago.

    • Re:What they mean: (Score:4, Interesting)

      by Mashiki (184564) <[mashiki] [at] [gmail.com]> on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:59PM (#29166257) Homepage

      Funny that. Is the 1% P2P users, or is the the new breed of people watching video's online? If I remember the last graph that Teksavvy tossed out of their current breakdown of net traffic, people watching streaming media of all types accounted for around 50% of their net traffic.

    • by Spazmania (174582)

      I'd like to be able to go to a local park and hike the nature trail. If the trail is cordoned off for a race every once in a while, I'll skip it then. If it's cordoned off for a race every weekend, that's a problem. I'll expect the park rangers to reject requests which too frequently occupy the park's resources to the exclusion of people like me.

      1% of the network's users take action with protocols like bittorrent which fully occupy the network to the exclusion of folks who just want to check their webmail a

  • by tsa (15680)

    There must be more intelligent ways of handling this. For instance, someone who downloads more than so many GB a day can be throttled or capped individually. That shouldn't be too hard, I think.

    • I download a TON of stuff. I would happily accept a speed throttle.

      Of course if they charge you by gigabyte over the cap they make more money than just throttling you.

    • by drhamad (868567)
      Sure, but /. gets all upset when Comcast/etc does that as well. Many ISP's either do that or have done that - and everyone gets pissed every time.
    • "For instance, someone who downloads more than so many GB a day can be throttled or capped individually. That shouldn't be too hard, I think."

      For instance, they could be compliant with the fucking contract we both agreed on that says 24x7 X bandwith upload Y bandwith download. If they can't stand by those terms (that, contrary to me, they were absolutly free to choose), then they can change for their next contract agreement or upon renoval at termination of mine. Then they could be not blatant liers and s

  • I use UPC (Score:3, Interesting)

    by bhima (46039) * <Bhima DOT Pandava AT gmail DOT com> on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:14PM (#29165919) Journal

    I use UPC in Austria. I don't think this is anything new. They been fucking with my bandwidth for ages.

    • UPC stinks, I have held off on getting Internet service from them and this now turns out to be a good decision. Here in the Netherlands they are well known for their digital TV cable service, which uses a proprietary protocol (i.e. you have to use their set top box, which eats donkey balls), and which is way too expensive if you want all of their three poxy HD channels. I am praying for the EU to follow through and force competition between cable operators. At this time UPC is the only choice besides get
  • by jmknsd (1184359) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:14PM (#29165921)

    I thought Net Neutrality was to prevent ISPs from filtering and controlling content, not protocols and speeds?

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by avilliers (1158273)

      Technically, "net neutrality" refers to the traffic being completely agnostic about what a packet is--phone, video, http, etc.

      Most of the insidious scenarios painted by the loss of neutrality do relate to content filtering--ie, Comcast makes a deal with Amazon and gimps the connections to, say, Powell's dodgy enough customers just think Amazon is the place to shop.

      If it's really as described in this case, for bandwidth management, I personally don't think it's all that scary. There are issues about transpa

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Dragonslicer (991472)

        Technically, "net neutrality" refers to the traffic being completely agnostic about what a packet is--phone, video, http, etc.

        No, it absolutely does not. Net Neutrality only refers to filtering or throttling based on source or destination. Prioritizing VoIP traffic over BitTorrent traffic is not a Net Neutrality issue. Throttling Vonage's VoIP traffic to make your ISP's VoIP service more attractive is a Net Neutrality issue.

        • by Quothz (683368) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @06:33PM (#29166989) Journal

          No, it absolutely does not. Net Neutrality only refers to filtering or throttling based on source or destination. Prioritizing VoIP traffic over BitTorrent traffic is not a Net Neutrality issue. Throttling Vonage's VoIP traffic to make your ISP's VoIP service more attractive is a Net Neutrality issue.

          I agree. The redefinition of network neutrality to include traffic type is a marketing scheme, no more. It allows providers to say "Net neutrality is not bad. We use it to slow down abusive users." This makes the debate about a straw man - it's harder to object to this behavior than real neutrality violations. By making the debate about peer-to-peer and streaming traffic taking bandwidth away from other users, they sidestep the real issue of giving privilege to certain content providers over others.

          Again: The people who want to define network neutrality to include this behavior are not on your side. They want you to use that definition so they can control the debate. If they win the debate, we the netizens lose, and we lose a lot.

          This is an important issue that could well help direct the culture of the technologized* world for a long time - possibly centuries, but certainly decades. Do we want content approved and delivered mainly by large central providers, like with television, or the free-for-all we have today? I choose the latter.

          * Don't you think it's time we stopped saying "industrialized"?

    • I thought Net Neutrality was to prevent ISPs from filtering and controlling content, not protocols and speeds?

      That's true, but if the summary is accurate (I know, I know), they appear to be throttling certain HTTP traffic because the site supposedly uses too much bandwidth.

    • From the summary god damn:
      "within the HTTP realm some Web sites and services that use lots of upstream bandwidth are capped as well."

      Sounds like it fits the bill perfectly....
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by AmiMoJo (196126)

      If your ISP throttles YouTube down to a speed where you can no longer watch a video without waiting half an hour for it to buffer (hi Virgin Media), then that pretty effectively blocks their content.

  • In unrelated news... (Score:5, Informative)

    by lalena (1221394) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:14PM (#29165923) Homepage
    Torrents updated to now support P2P over HTTP.
    • by Renraku (518261) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:25PM (#29166017) Homepage

      It's really not a joke, I suspect something like this will happen.

      The only way they'll be able to completely stop torrents and warez downloading would be to cut off internet access entirely.

      Never underestimate nerds who want to fix something, even if they have to resort to TCP/IP over Carrier Pigeon.

    • by oldhack (1037484)

      Might as well. It seems to me, their real problem is they oversold their bandwidth, and the proper thing to do is to reprice bandwidth usage. Stop bullshitting the customers with promise of bandwidth they can't deliver.

      Yeah, that would suck in marketing aspect. Again might as well. If a company actually uttered a truth, it just might shock some of us into death by heart attack.

  • by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:16PM (#29165939) Homepage

    Couldn't they instead perform a kind of load-balancing based on the actual bandwidth being consumed by each customer, regardless of protocol or destination? As far as I'm concerned, that's the only way to do QOS without violating the principle of network neutrality.

    • by Otterley (29945)

      Or, they could just charge by the bit, like every other utility (water, gas, electricity).

  • But it's a one year contract wich ends in a few months goddamn! a well, let's look for a new isp.

    Move along now, nothing to see here!
  • by Vinegar Joe (998110) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:21PM (#29165991)

    After all, where did the term "going Dutch" come from?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by binkzz (779594)
      Actually, UPC is an American company, and they don't have a very good name in Holland for reasons such as this one.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    Huh ?
    A Dutch provider messes with the network ?
    What are they smoking ?

  • by Alain Williams (2972) <addw@phcomp.co.uk> on Sunday August 23, 2009 @04:28PM (#29166037) Homepage
    At least they don't seem to be filtering by destination ... eg Disney paid something so they get priority of their bandwidth.

    I don't like filtering by protocol: I would get pissed off if my ssh sessions were slowed down.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    In the short time that I've been UPC customer, I have been thoroughly dissatisfied with their service. Too many outages, and a paid helpdesk who weren't competent enough to do anything but reading from scripts. Quite the difference from when I was with XS4all- slightly more expensive, but what a difference. Competent people there (met them at HIP back in '97). Never needed the helpdesk as the connection *just worked*. Always. Now that I live abroad, I've got similar experiences. Goodbye BT- I hope you've le

  • blame it on the magic 1% user and then punish their other customers by capping their bandwidth.
  • Someone mentioned that they would be upset if their SSH sessions slow down. Well, just tunnel ssh over http http://dag.wieers.com/howto/ssh-http-tunneling/ [wieers.com]
  • Compared to the US, I guess we're doing better, but these are my options as I currently see them in Amsterdam.

    Everytime I change ISPs, it is to get more bandwidth for less cost. I'm just finishing a ADSL 2 year contract with Tele2 and was seriously considering UPC. Still am, but this news sucks. UPC also has extraordinarily bad customer service. Bad in a legendary way.

    There are loads of ADSL ISPs offering 20mb down/ 1up, with phone & TV for 30 euros a month. UPC uses the city coax network and DOCSIS 3.0

    • Forgot to mention, real-life speeds:

      While I pay for 20 mps down, I'm lucky to get 10 mbs down. Usually around 7.5 mps download is average, and about .6 mps up. This is with Tele2 ADSL, but I think all Dutch ADSL is the same now.

      Any other consumers out there willing to compare? At least ADSL can be bought cheap here.

      • by Tony Hoyle (11698)

        Sounds like your ISP is overselling its bandwidth.

        In the UK it's the same sort of situation.. you can get up to 24Mbps* (theoretically.. most people get around 16 due to distance from the exchange) but not all ISPs are equal. There are some *really* cheap deals out there eg. £9.99 'unlimited' (subject to limits**), but if you go with such an ISP be prepared to deal with nonexistant customer support, huge latency and massive slowdowns especially in the evenings. Alternatively you can go with a more p

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      60 down and 1 up is a joke. There is no way that you are going to be able to effective use much more than 10 mbps down with only 1 mbps up.

      And since when did net neutrality have anything to do with traffic shaping? Net neutrality is when all destinations are treated equally, not all protocols.

      If you are on a net that has both tcp and udp traffic (the entire internet) you are already making protocol choices.

    • "Everytime I change ISPs, it is to get more bandwidth for less cost."

      Everytime I chanhge ISPs, it is to get more *claimed* bandwidth *that it could be called "abuse" if I dare to in fact use it* for less cost.

      There, corrected for you.

  • by Hurricane78 (562437) <deleted@slashBLUEdot.org minus berry> on Sunday August 23, 2009 @05:23PM (#29166407)

    I know from internal sources*, that at the beginning to middle of the decade, Jubii was so successful in Denmark, that they were able to put the following rule on the providers:
    Either you give us money, or your users won't be able to access our site.

    Of course this was not strictly caused by the providers, but it was certainly not neutral.
    ___
    * I don't think that it was ever a secret. (For obvious reasons.)

  • If I buy a DSL 6000 line with a flat-rate, I expect to get it. Period. No, I don't care for any "up to" clauses or "extreme traffic capping". People are expecting to get those 6000 kb/s and no limitations, they know it, and they specifically use that expectation to get you as a client. It's a scam, and they know it. Period.

    The nice thing is, that now, you can end the contract, because they changed the terms. They can't simply change things afterwards, without you accepting them.

    So goodbye UPC. See you in ba

    • If you bought a DSL 6000 line that actually guaranteed that service level it would cost you several times more than what you are paying now. The fact is that the internet gets much of economic power because of statistical use of the bandwidth. If everyone actually insisted on guaranteed service levels we would be back in the era of the switched circuit networks of the 1950's.

    • by dnaumov (453672)

      If I buy a DSL 6000 line with a flat-rate, I expect to get it. Period.

      Sure you can get that, but expect to pay anywhere from 3 to 10 times the price of a regular consumer connection.

      No, I don't care for any "up to" clauses

      You should, it's in the contract you signed.

  • All protocols but HTTP are capped to 1/3 speed, and within the HTTP realm some Web sites and services that use lots of upstream bandwidth are capped as well. So far UPC is hiding behind the usual excuse: 'We are protecting all the users against the 1% of the user base who abuse our network.'"

    Well IMAP, SMTP and POP3 are not HTTP protocols, nor is IRC, or IM programs, or video game clients like Wow etc. I also assume Google Earth will be slower as well as Antivirus programs doing updates will be slower and O

  • by Tweenk (1274968) on Sunday August 23, 2009 @05:57PM (#29166685)

    Someone's missing the point of net neutrality.

    Net neutrality means: if I have network access, and some guy has network access, we can connect; the ISP treats my connection the same regardless of WHO I'm connecting with. It doesn't mean the ISP cannot differentiate the quality of the connection based on HOW we connect.

    This is something else: they are varying quality based on HOW they're connecting to others (what protocol). Note that it's not an outright ban, only a rate limit in order to prioritize of HTTP traffic. The only problematic part is the throttling of upload-intensive services. However, it is not a net neutrality issue as long as they are throttling solely on the amount of bandwidth consumed by a service, rather than who pays them most money to have his service unthrottled.

    Remember: Net neutrality is not about unrestricted BitTorrent for everyone. It is about the Internet not turning into cable TV. It is about stopping ISPs colluding with content providers so that they can charge you or deny you access to your favorite websites, in order to ram their own inferior ad-infested versions down your throat. It is about being able to connect to everyone without seeking permission of your ISP or paying extra. It is about Internet access being a binary variable: either you can connect, or you can't. No limited service plans where you can connect only to the ISP's webmail and search engine, and all other webmails and search engines are blocked unless you 'upgrade'. No 'premium sites' you can only use if your ISP has a deal with the content provider that you cannot opt into or out of.

    If you are dissatisfied by your ISP blocking or throttling your favorite website or service, by all means complain. But do not conflate traffic shaping with net neutrality. It muddles an already complex issue, and harms our chances to win this battle.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by KonoWatakushi (910213)

      Protocol discrimination is an equally important issue for network neutrality, as it has the same result. While prioritizing traffic by protocol in the name of QOS may appear to be fair on the surface, it is anything but, and will stunt the growth of innovative and competing services on the Internet.

      Think about it; how will a competing protocol, or any other innovative new protocol emerge when it is so disadvantaged? The most popular existing protocols end up with a natural monopolies on the Internet.

      No on

  • Everyone have heard the phrase: "1% of the user base who abuse our network".
    But the strange thing is, the "abusers" are still using their internet at less-then or equal to their cap.
    They pay for X Mbs/sec and when they actually use somewhat close to that amount suddenly they are abusing it?
    So exactly how can you abuse a network while following the ruled laid out when you purchased the use of it?
  • So, they are slowing down all but one port out of 65535 by 1/3rd... are they also going to reduce the price by 2/3 * 65534/65535? Didn't think so.

  • We are protecting all the users against the 1% of the user base who abuse our network.

    Hang on a minute. That 1% are abusing the network, which presumably is against the terms of service or some such. A logical person would suggest that they could protect the 99% of their users who are not abusive by kicking off the 1% that are? Like kicking the loud drunk of the train for the good of the other passengers (and the train).

    Instead this ISP is punishing all the users on your network that use youtube or what-ever other popular site (which chances are is a fair majority of their users) while leavi

  • by Ant P. (974313)

    My ISP's been playing games with throttling my (overpriced, shitty upstream speed) connection for at least 2 years. They have a virtual monopoly because I live in the middle of nowhere, and I know some poor guy who lives near one of the worse exchanges whose connection goes to hell at the same minute each day.

  • Just curious (Score:3, Interesting)

    by TrailerTrash (91309) * on Sunday August 23, 2009 @08:38PM (#29167747)

    Is it really 1% of the user base consuming a huge portion of the bandwidth? That figure gets tossed around a lot, and I wonder if it's true.

    We decry 1% of world citizens controlling 90% of the world's assets (substitute your favorite estimate for the 90%), and 4% of the world's people (USA) consuming a vast amount of the energy of the world.

    Do we not care about the disproportionate internet usage because the /. community are the ones doing the consuming? Theoretically, without P2P, would the "experience" for Joe six-pack be better? Or not?

  • by Xest (935314) on Monday August 24, 2009 @03:30AM (#29170211)

    I guess they've never heard of a little country in Europe called Great Britain.

    Yes, a country where net neutrality has been broken for nearly 3 - 5 years now. Not only that, but in the UK the government has declared no interest in net neutrality and has given ISPs the green light to do what they want.

    Originally OFCOM, the telecommunications watchdog in the UK stated that it would be unacceptable if ISPs took it to the level of slowing down certain companies sites over others, but even that stance seems to have changed now as they appear to be considering allowing ISPs to hold the BBC to ransom forcing them to pay for the bandwidth they already pay their ISP for and their users already pay the threatening ISP for.

    Britain is not unique in this respect in Europe either, it happens in many other countries here, I can only guess the submitter lives under a rock in his home country and now this has happened has woken up and started to take notice crying blue murder to the world. Unfortunately, the rest of us have been trying to fight the destruction of even the slightest hope for net neutrality in Europe for a few years now.

    Isn't it great when people only cry out when something suddenly effects them? This is why things like this happen in the first place, because no one gives a shit about potential issues. If people across Europe had made a loud point about breaking of net neutrality earlier on it could've been stopped and wouldn't be creeping from country to country as it is now.

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

Working...