Not good...two spped internet.

[BREWSTERS]

This stinks;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11773574

 

[monaghan]

What tosh, if ISP's sell X Mb per month in the package they should have to provide it, it is totally unrealistic to expect someone to shell out more to use it to access the BBC / YouTube etc... I'd expect a discount for not being able to access the BBC etc not a premium to be able to use it.

Shouldn't they implement QoS capability of TCP/IP or simply buy big enough pipes to allow their customers to use what they've been sold?

 

[Edwin]

I could see a strong political case for de-prioritising peer-to-peer/torrent traffic. That wouldn't impact "regular" websites in the slightest.

 

[tifosi]

... and all these "Call of Judy" or whatever gamers!

*duck and covers*

 

[monaghan]

Why is peer to peer (or other chosen product) less important though? When we get into others deciding what we can and can't access it gets into dodgy ground. I personally would rank YouTube lower priority, however, my kids would think differently!

Of course politicians simply take the word of their "industry experts" who in this case are probably "influenced" by the ISP's. Just take a look at the silly low prices a lot of ISP's offer broadband for combine that with the "unlimited" offers, then ask the question as to why these ISP's need to look at traffic shaping!

 

[aZooZa]

It's new quango policy. "If it's not broken, fix it."

 

[disruptive]

It's rather like the post man having a feel and a look through the letters to see whats in them and charging them accordingly. That cheque will cost you extra. It implies that each packet is not of the same value.

B

 

[jimm]

At the end of the day it is the ISPs who have created this. They have pushed down the price of broadband to the point that it is unsustainable now that people are actually starting to usie the bandwidth that they have been advertised and are paying for.

Some providers offer services at only 90p more than the BT tail cost! Then factor in support (which they admit costs 60p per user) leaving 30p for collecting the money and then oops, nothing left to actually provide any bandwidth, routers, DNS, radius etc.

I would expect the majority of end users won't understand what is actually happening if this comes into effect and so will never get the option to vote with their feet. They dont currently understand why their sync speed is so different to their actual usable speed due to over subscribed and congested networks and current traffic shaping which is in place. Even some people that work in IT seem to have difficulty with it at times.
How many people here suffer slow speeds yet are with talk talk, or AOL or Sky?
EUs will be fobbed off with reasons like its the distance to the exchange or its a PC problem.

The bit which really gets me is the fact it is suggested that content providers should pay more money to get their time sensitive data (streaming audio and video, VOIP and simialr) to the EU without running in to traffic shaping or prioritisation.

So yes I do think internet pricing does need to be reviewed but no this is not the way.