facebook rss twitter

BT service accused of facilitating a two-tier web

by Sarah Griffiths on 4 January 2011, 16:17

Tags: British Telecom (LON:BT.A)

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qa3rq

Add to My Vault: x

Two-tier trouble

BT has started to sell a controversial service to broadband providers that gives them the means to form a two-tier web, sparking criticism from internet rights groups.

In a bid to cash in on an increasing amount of people downloading and streaming videos, BT's new service is reportedly designed to allow high bandwidth material to be streamed to consumers without annoying interruptions even at peak times.

Dreamt up by BT's wholesale unit, the new service lets some video content reach consumers in better condition than others, enabling ISPs to charge content owners more money to deliver their products in high quality, The FT reported.

BT has apparently started giving its retail unit plus other telecoms firms the opportunity to buy into the service, which is called Content Connect. BT's retail arm is apparently already using the service to supply its TV customers with BBC iPlayer.

While uninterupted video streaming sounds great in theory, it could be assumed that the cost of the service will somehow be passed on to consumers and that the very principle of net neutrality is at stake.

While The Open Rights Group has reportedly warned that Contect Connect undermines the idea that web traffic should be treated equally, BT's head of wholesale, Sally Davis has dismissed accusations that the service will lead to a two tier web where smaller content owners will lose out to larger and richer rivals who can afford to pay for extra quality delivery.

Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, reportedly said: "BT's plans have the potential to end up with a two-tier internet, with customers increasingly tied to bundled services [from broadband providers], and a reduction in competition across the open internet."

However, Davis argued that ISPs are increasing their download speeds so the quality of basic ‘over-the-top' or presumably higher bandwidth content is already improving across the board.

Davis told the newspaper that ISPs are showing ‘considerable' interest in the new network and that providers could actually reduce their costs by forking out for the service as it could reduce their spending on ‘backhaul' connections between their infrastructure and telephone exchanges.

The network will reportedly rely on servers placed relatively close to homes and offices so that data can travel short distances, giving consumers more chance of watching videos without interruption.

Davis reportedly said ISPs might be able to give consumers a option to pay an on-demand charge to watch a live event, such as a concert or football match...in addition to the ususal charges associated with watching premium content.



HEXUS Forums :: 8 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Looks like 2011 will be the year the tech companies dictate what the customers should pay and not the other way round.

Of course the Sheep will gleefully accept this and pay for things which were previously free even though we are in a recession.
I struggle to see how allowing companies to provide better services at a higher price to customers who are willing to pay more is a threat to neutrality?

This whole “two-tier” thing is ridiculous, because we already have a mutli-tier web depending on which exchange you're attached to and how far you are form it, plus whether a cable company happened to install any fibre in your street at any point over the past few decades. I personally welcome anything that provides a wider choice of broadband options, even if you're still tied in to BTs copper monopoly…
scaryjim
I struggle to see how allowing companies to provide better services at a higher price to customers who are willing to pay more is a threat to neutrality?

This whole “two-tier” thing is ridiculous, because we already have a mutli-tier web depending on which exchange you're attached to and how far you are form it, plus whether a cable company happened to install any fibre in your street at any point over the past few decades. I personally welcome anything that provides a wider choice of broadband options, even if you're still tied in to BTs copper monopoly…

It depends on the price you are going to pay TBH. People in larger towns and cities tend to already have decent internet connections and in this case it may cost them more if ISPs intend to levy an additional surcharge on the existing pricing structures.

I would like to believe that this is done for our benefit but all I can see is an excuse for the ISPs to charge us more during a recession just like the energy companies. It does not mean that the services will get any better for most people.
i read it as companies are going to be charged more if they want to provide their audience/customers with higher quality streaming, i.e HD films. Im probably reading it wrong but if it is that then its clear why net neutrality is comming into effect as its getting “preference” over other companies and customers that wont pay that extra useless cost… stupid BT
Hicks12
i read it as companies are going to be charged more if they want to provide their audience/customers with higher quality streaming, i.e HD films. Im probably reading it wrong but if it is that then its clear why net neutrality is comming into effect as its getting “preference” over other companies and customers that wont pay that extra useless cost… stupid BT

That's exactly how I read it too, except I don't see how you regard being able to target particular content and allow higher bandwidth for that content as a “useless extra cost”. If it means that at busy times you can stream your 720p content at a higher bandwidth, reducing the risk of stutters and interruptions in play, then that will be worth the extra cost for many people. As far as I can tell this is a wholesale opt-in service, so if companies don't want to pay the extra cost then they just won't buy this service. They'll then have to compete by making their existing broadband offerings as cheap as possible, against targetted offerings from other companies who have bought the extra services and can offer increased bandwidth, but presumably at a higher cost. That's simple market economics, not “neutrality” or some other ephemeral concept - you provide a range of products at a range of prices and people buy the product that they want. You can't expect to get the same service for £5 a month that you'd get for £35 a month. And as I mentioned earlier, given how poor broadband services still are in parts of this country, we already have a multi-tier net even for people who are paying the same amount for theoretically identical broadband services. So those arguments strike me as being completely moot.

Additionally, it sounds like the broadband providers will be able to offset some of the extra cost - if they so choose - by “selling” the service to content providers. I guess that's the bit that worries the net neutrality lot - if an ISP does a deal with ITV so ITVPlayer traffic uses the new system while iPlayer traffic doesn't, that would mean people using that ISP would get an unrealistic impression of the quality of those services because their ISP is not “neutral” - they are allied to ITV.

The bottom line on that, though, is that you can't expect to have a neutral net if you're going to let a lot of private companies - who are quite rightly seeking to maximize their profit - run all your infrastucture… :rolleyes: