CC-licensed: jontintinjordan

The government's culture minister, Ed Vaizey, has gone on record to say that he's happy for ISPs to go ahead with plans to create a two-tiered internet, abandoning network neutrality.

Network neutrality, or net neutrality for short, is a principle that states that if a given user pays for a certain level of internet access, and another user pays for the same level of access, then the two users should be able to connect to each other at the subscribed level of access. Advocates of enforced net neutrality warn that if net neutrality is abandoned, ISPs will create "fast lanes" for web traffic, where content from paying providers is passed along at a priority over those who won't pay, forcing every content company to pay up to make sure they're not penalised, creating the equivalent of an online protection racket.

Web luminaries like Vinton Cerf, Eric Huggers and Tim Berners-Lee have spoken out in favour of net neutrality, as has the US President Obama, but Vaizey disagrees, telling a telecoms conference that minimal regulation of how network providers can offer services is "good for business, good for the economy and good for people". He added: "Consumers should have the ability to access any legal content or service. Content and service providers should have the ability to innovate and, most importantly, to reach users."

Vaizey continued: "There is not yet evidence of any impact either on competition or consumers from traffic management. We are still at an early stage here. Such impacts and harms could arise in the future, and greater transparency is required to combat this." His argument is that expansion of the UK's network infrastructure requires the additional funds that dumping net neutrality would bring.

The Open Rights Group's Jim Killock told the BBC: "Ed Vaizey is wrong to assume that there is no problem if BT or Virgin restrict people's internet access for their commercial advantage. Removing 'net neutrality' will reduce innovation and reduce people's ability to exercise their freedom of speech."


  1. Oh god, Ed Vaizey, what do you know about technology? Are you qualified to make decisions like this. I wouldn't say so.Please hire an adviser who will make the decisions for you that actually does have at least a BSc in Computer Science!  

    Nov 18th 2010
  2. The UK appears to becomming more like China every day.Why should customers foot the bill for expansion of Network Infrastructure? And why is the Government sticking their nose into this ?Seems to me that this is the second round of the abandoned "Broadband tax" ...If this comes about, I'll startup my own ISP... I won't support a "two teir" and watch the customers come flooding in..Ed, Don't screw with the Internet.. it'll bite you very hard on the buttocks if you do.  

    Nov 18th 2010
  3. A two-tiered system will lead to the rich getting access to richer media online, while those who cannot or struggle to afford higher grade internet will be scrapping amongst themselves for bandwidth.For any tory voter reading, I hope you're happy!  

    Stephen Wilding
    Nov 18th 2010
  4. Giving amatures free reign on issue that they don't understand seems to be the mainstay of recent politics. They can always claim later they were wrongly advised. Anyone who actually understands the technology issues here will know how stupid a decision this is. Those who don't may have the intelligence to look at the views of those who invented the web (yes I know this is net neutrality but they are talking about web traffic) and gave a way fortunes to keep it open and neutral.Or perhaps that the rest of the free world says keep it neutral. The UK puts on its blindfold and heads towards the chinking sound of more cash. The consumer is already paying for the bandwidth, great idea charge the providers as well for the same service. That can only lead to a web dominated by the big/very big players.  

    Niccolo Capanni
    Nov 18th 2010
  5. What exactly does 'good for the economy' mean and how is that consistent with that which is 'good for people'? In all that I've observed as we crawl out from the rubble of the economic downturn I've yet to see a situation where decisions made for the good of the economy have directly resulted in any long term benefit for people. Stimulating the generation of revenue for key organisations who are employers to thousands of citizens might indirectly benefit the few but I am not able to accept that dumping net neutrality is in the interest of the majority, just as it is not in the interest of the majority to stimulate the buy-to-let market, or reduce funding for public or third sector organisations which perform a vital state function at a fraction of the cost to the state of an equivalent private company. Modern politics has become reactive, with our democratic representatives enslaved to an economy with big business at the helm. We pay the price for the health of our economy with our liberty and privacy where others around the world have paid the price with their lives and livelihoods for our energy security.  

    Nov 18th 2010
  6. Net neutrality helps ensure equality and a fairer society for all. Why fix what isn't broken? Sort out you head Ed and your heart for that matter!!!  

    Nov 18th 2010
  7. Jeez, these politicians really are a liability.This is like a sick joke. It shouldn't even be an argument. Ed Vaizey you are a fool, don't mess with things you clearly do not understand. You are meant to be a Culture Minister not the Chancellor, please try focusing on that.  

    Nov 22nd 2010
  8. I'm lost - what is this debate about? When I buy electricity I pay for the amount I use. When I buy gas, I pay for the amount I use. Why am I not supposed to pay for the amount of data I use? Don't get me wrong, I don't advocate a 'pay as you go' Internet but I do advocate those the use a lot of data pay more. I am one of those quite heavy users (~40-60GB/month) and I pay £25 a month to my ISP. I'm happy with the service I get and they don't throttle the pipe for any data type. I could pay Talk-Talk £7/month and get a service that I wouldn't be happy about, that's my prerogative. Suggesting that the BBC pay for 'their' high data usage is bobbins - that's like suggesting PowerGen pay for my excessive electricity usage because I can go out and buy electric fan heaters.So to make my position clear - I agree with a 'tired' system where you get what you pay for. I do not agree with an ISP *controlling* bandwidth based on traffic type, at least not yet - once we have IPv6 with a better QoS model and greater overall bandwidth availability, perhaps then it will be acceptable.The biggest culprits for this problem are the ISPs - too many of them oversell their services and offer rock-bottom prices without a clear indication of the limitations. Another culprit/victim is the non-technical consumer who doesn't realise that Internet service is not like electricity and gas in that it's not "the same stuff" no matter who you buy it from. But this is nothing new, non-technical consumers have been getting ripped off by garages and plumbers for decades ;-)  

    Dec 22nd 2010

Reply to a comment

Submit »

Latest on