Here's a refreshing burst of reality from the UK's only fibre-coax ISP - the fastest UK ISP has provisioning nightmares and has cheated customers out of a Spotify upgrade through its own incompetence, thus also shooting itself in the foot. Oh, did I mention this is about the best ISP in Europe on QoS...
Wednesday, May 30, 2012
Totally distorted European internal market for QoS
You might recall that the Article 22 QoS requirements were put in back in 2008 to a large extent to avoid a distorted marke in which European SMEs and home-workers in one market had an entirely different Internet experience than fellow citizens in another.
Well, the most interesting outcome from the BEREC snapshot (full report next EC Implementation Report, to actuually fulfill their legal requirement from 2010?), is that Europe is torn down the middle, with 40% of broadband and 57% of mobile consumers subject to restrictions, and about 10% subject to continuous restrictions. Is this not fragmenting the Internal Market?
Well, the most interesting outcome from the BEREC snapshot (full report next EC Implementation Report, to actuually fulfill their legal requirement from 2010?), is that Europe is torn down the middle, with 40% of broadband and 57% of mobile consumers subject to restrictions, and about 10% subject to continuous restrictions. Is this not fragmenting the Internal Market?
Neelie: the market's not working, consumers don't read - so let's give them even more info they won't read...
You couldn't make it up: " in nearly all Member States, most if not all ISPs offer fixed and mobile Internet access services that are not subject to such restrictions. According to the BEREC figures 85% of all fixed ISPs and 76% of all mobile ISPs propose at least one unrestricted offer. So the market is generally providing choice, but in some countries the choices are quite limited in some EU countries.
But are customers really empowered to choose well? Do they realise what they are signing up for? I didn’t read all the pages in my mobile contract and I bet you didn’t either! I believe we all need more transparent information." This is extraordinary dereliction, given pretty clear BEREC evidence which is at leats honest that is was supplying an anonymous snapshot of ISP-supplied data (Q: 'Are you guilty or not?' Defendant: 'Not guilty, you honour'). Let them eat small print...
That said, some of the small print will be useful, not to stop ISPs blocking Skype and monkeying around with P2P, but to force enough information out that the Commission will have to act in 2-3 years, when Neelie is no longer Commissioner (on this, I miss Reding):
1. Clear information on actual, real-life broadband speeds [1] at peak times; [2] upload as well as the download speed [3] minimum speed, if applicable [4] speed of Internet when also using a premium “managed” service.
2. Clear, quantified data ceilings NOT vague “fair use” policies that leave too much discretion to ISPs, which she ambitiously believes "incentivise ISPs to price data volumes in ways that reflect costs, and so support investment in modernising networks as traditional voice revenues decline." Good luck with that.
3. "consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldn’t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldn’t be marketed as “Internet” at all, at least not without any upfront qualification." Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...meanwhile, hard consumer evidence on smartphone blocking and sales practices helps the dossier?
But are customers really empowered to choose well? Do they realise what they are signing up for? I didn’t read all the pages in my mobile contract and I bet you didn’t either! I believe we all need more transparent information." This is extraordinary dereliction, given pretty clear BEREC evidence which is at leats honest that is was supplying an anonymous snapshot of ISP-supplied data (Q: 'Are you guilty or not?' Defendant: 'Not guilty, you honour'). Let them eat small print...
That said, some of the small print will be useful, not to stop ISPs blocking Skype and monkeying around with P2P, but to force enough information out that the Commission will have to act in 2-3 years, when Neelie is no longer Commissioner (on this, I miss Reding):
1. Clear information on actual, real-life broadband speeds [1] at peak times; [2] upload as well as the download speed [3] minimum speed, if applicable [4] speed of Internet when also using a premium “managed” service.
2. Clear, quantified data ceilings NOT vague “fair use” policies that leave too much discretion to ISPs, which she ambitiously believes "incentivise ISPs to price data volumes in ways that reflect costs, and so support investment in modernising networks as traditional voice revenues decline." Good luck with that.
3. "consumers also need to know if they are getting Champagne or lesser sparkling wine. If it is not full Internet, it shouldn’t be marketed as such; perhaps it shouldn’t be marketed as “Internet” at all, at least not without any upfront qualification." Perhaps, perhaps, perhaps...meanwhile, hard consumer evidence on smartphone blocking and sales practices helps the dossier?
Tuesday, May 29, 2012
Open Internet Advisory Committee membership announced
Excellent company - and with Clark, Cooper and Greenstein supporting our esteemed chair this is a very impressive group. Of course, one hopes what they really do is not reflected in the back-slapping Press Release. Judge them by their deeds...
Wednesday, May 23, 2012
Translations of key Dutch internet freedom provisions
Via the excellent Axel Arnbak: Translations of key Dutch internet freedom provisions « Bits of Freedom: "Article 7.4a Telecommunications Act (unofficial translation)
1. Providers of public electronic communication networks which deliver internet access services and providers of internet access services do not hinder or slow down applications and services on the internet, unless and to the extent that the measure in question with which applications or services are being hindered or slowed down is necessary:
a. to minimize the effects of congestion, whereby equal types of traffic should be treated equally;
b. to preserve the integrity and security of the network and service of the provider in question or the terminal of the enduser;
c. to restrict the transmission to an enduser of unsolicited communication as refered to in Article 11.7, first paragraph, provided that the enduser has given its prior consent;
d. to give effect to a legislative provision or court order." There's more - and an explanatory memorandum.
'via Blog this'
1. Providers of public electronic communication networks which deliver internet access services and providers of internet access services do not hinder or slow down applications and services on the internet, unless and to the extent that the measure in question with which applications or services are being hindered or slowed down is necessary:
a. to minimize the effects of congestion, whereby equal types of traffic should be treated equally;
b. to preserve the integrity and security of the network and service of the provider in question or the terminal of the enduser;
c. to restrict the transmission to an enduser of unsolicited communication as refered to in Article 11.7, first paragraph, provided that the enduser has given its prior consent;
d. to give effect to a legislative provision or court order." There's more - and an explanatory memorandum.
'via Blog this'
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
It's official! Dutch 3-strikes/DPI/net neutrality law
"New legislation in the Netherlands makes it the first country in Europe to establish a legal framework supporting net neutrality. In addition to the net neutrality provisions, the law contains language that restricts when ISPs can wiretap their users, and limits the circumstances under which ISPs can cut off a subscriber’s Internet access altogether. The anti-wiretapping section of the new law specifies that ISPs may not use technologies like deep packet inspection (DPI), except under limited circumstances, or with explicit consent from the ISP’s customer, or to comply with a court order or other legislative provisions."
Frankly Section 7.4 of the Telecommunications Act (Dutch blog readers, am I correct in citation?) is more important for what it misses on neutrality (i.e. all providers decided to stop selling data-only mobile to avoid WhatsApp cannibalising them), but very interesting precedent on consumer protections against DPI and 3-strikes. The first pro-consumer No Disconnect law?
There's a very useful cut-out-and-keep guide to the law by E.M. Lokke Moerel here.
There's a very useful cut-out-and-keep guide to the law by E.M. Lokke Moerel here.
Thursday, May 17, 2012
FCC election year issue? Observing traffic prioritization in Comcast’s network
berg'd: Bryan Berg's tumblr — Observing traffic prioritization in Comcast’s network: "What I’ve concluded is that Comcast is using separate DOCSIS service flows to prioritize the traffic to the Xfinity Xbox app (so that I’m using consistent terminology, I’m going to call this traffic “Xfinity traffic” in the rest of the post). This separation allows them to exempt that traffic from both bandwidth cap accounting and download speed limits. It’s still plain-old HTTP delivering MP4-encoded video files, just like the other streaming services use, but additional priority is granted to the Xfinity traffic at the DOCSIS level. I still believe that DSCP values I observed in the packet headers of Xfinity traffic is the method by which Comcast signals that traffic is to be prioritized, both in their backbone and regional networks and their DOCSIS network." 'via Blog this'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)