Culture minister Ed Vaizey has backed a "two-speed" internet, letting service providers charge content makers and customers for "fast lane" access.

It paves the way for an end to "net neutrality" - with heavy bandwidth users like Google and the BBC likely to face a bill for the pipes they use.

Mr Vaizey said ISPs must be free to experiment with new charges to help pay for the expansion in internet services.

But critics warn the move could harm free speech and stifle innovation.
'Fast lane'

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) are supposed to treat all web traffic equally - serving only as a one-size-fits-all pipe for whatever data is passing from content providers to end users.

But a debate has been raging around the world over how much they should be allowed to control the size of their pipes, and thus the internet speed that users get from the site.

In the US, President Barack Obama has backed net neutrality - treating all traffic equally - and regulators have threatened possible legal action against ISPs that block or restrict access to sites.

But some traffic management, where traffic from one source is favoured over another, is likely to be allowed, with a ruling due next year, Mr Vaizey suggests.

The EU has also backed traffic management but with greater transparency to ensure the internet remains "open" - something that will soon be enshrined in UK law.

Mr Vaizey argues that most ISPs already carried out traffic management "to ensure the smooth running of their networks" without any impact on competition or consumer rights.

In his speech, he argues that the continued quality of internet services in the UK is under threat due to the rapid expansion of mobile and wireless networks and the "massive investment" it needed.

As a result, ISPs had to be free to experiment with new ways of raising revenue - provided customers were clear about what they were buying.

He says: "We have got to continue to encourage the market to innovate and experiment with different business models and ways of providing consumers with what they want.

"This could include the evolution of a two-sided market where consumers and content providers could choose to pay for differing levels of quality of service."

He also suggests that content makers could be charged for the first time for the use of the ISP's networks - provided they too were clear about what they were getting.

"Content and application providers should be able to know exactly what level of service they are getting especially if they are paying for it," he says.
'Appalling'

He added that the government did not want to introduce new laws on top of those already being adopted from the EU to guarantee an "open" internet, arguing that light touch regulation was better.

He also argued that, that unlike in the US where some areas only had the choice of one service provider, there was enough rivalry between providers to ensure consumers' rights were protected.

"The essential competition we enjoy in Europe and especially in the UK, will be an essential safeguard against unfair discrimination," he argues.

He said ISPs must also guarantee that net users can continue to access any legal website or content.

"In order for the internet to continue as the open, innovative force for good that it has been over the past 20 years it is essential that all elements continue to prosper.

"This means ensuring that content providers and applications have open access to consumers and vice versa.

"But it also means allowing ISPs and networks to innovate and experiment with new ways of delivering what consumers want so we can ensure continued investment in the infrastructure that delivers the content and applications we all use."

But Jim Killock, of net freedom campaigners the Open Rights Group, said the proposals could have "appalling" consequences for free speech and commercial innovation.

"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.

"This is why ORG will campaign against any market abuse, should Ed Vaizey allow it to happen."
'Peak times'

But the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) welcomed what it called Mr Vaizey's "lightly-regulated, market-based approach" towards traffic management, adding that ISPs should be "open and transparent" to boost confidence in the industry.

An ISPA spokesman said: "This approach will reassure those who are investing in networks and coming up with new, innovative online business models.

"A number of ISPA members already provide consumers with clear information on traffic management practices and we expect to see this extended.

"ISPs use traffic management techniques so that they are able to effectively and efficiently run and manage their networks for the benefits of all users.

"This enables ISPs to prioritise time-sensitive applications, such as VoIP and online gaming, at peak times."

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

Erm, I seem to recall BT and VM arguing over who had the biggest d1ck (broadband speed), so why do I suspect the 'problem' has been made up to hide the usual chronic underinvestment while maximising short term profits?

Nothing like fcuking up an entire country's net access even further and for the foreseeable future when it's already creaking

Of course, end users already have a multi-tiered system. 50:1 broadband is cheaper than 20:1 which is very much cheaper than a leased line with guaranteed throughput. You get what you pay for.

And of course, the "content providers" do pay for the bandwidth they use. There's people on here who pay such bills.

The "Unlimited but Contended" end user model is what's wrong, because people simply fail to understand what they're paying for. You're not paying for an 8Meg broadband line - you're paying for a 2% share in one, which is how come it's so incredibly cheap. A 10Meg uncontended leased line might cost £500 a month plus £1000 installation, for example.

In the early days of PAYG dial-up you paid about 5p per minute and everyone was capped at about 40kbps. So if you had 50 people downloading, it was 2Megs of traffic on the ISP. It was pretty much uncontended and you paid for what you used. If you were only on for an hour, you only paid for an hour.

Now, many people have about 8Megs always-on but we're actually paying less than we did for dialup. The products being sold are typically 50:1 contention, which is fine when everyone is just browsing the web and doing email. However, if everyone tries to max out the connection with iPlayer HD then obviously you get only 2% of the headline speed each. That's 160k and that's what we're actually paying for.

Incidentally, downloading at a full 8Megs for a month is 2TB. A 50th of that is 40GB, which is close to most ISP's "fair usage".

Accepting bribes to prioritise certain content will not make the internet faster. It will make it slower. Much slower. The ISPs obviously can't suddenly give everyone 1:1 contention for £10 a month because that would cost many times more than they could squeeze in a reasonable time, so to achieve a guaranteed speed for e.g. iPlayer traffic they'll have to throttle all other traffic down to well below 160k for everyone. 48 people will be browsing at 1K so that 2 people can see "badger watch"...

It makes no sense. It's like putting up your road tax to paint a "fast lane" for people who drive more than you do. It would be far better to subsidise the building of faster roads for everyone.

In the long run, we simply need a faster infrastructure to enable affordable low contention. The content providers are already paying to upload their content, so the funding is either going to come from the end users paying more for what they use, from capital investment by huge players with vested interests or it's going to come from the government like it did in the more technologically advanced countries who will soon rule the world.

The basic service should have net neutrality as the basis of mass access. If companies want to have better access then they can pay for it, and they do. Though for the majority we want the fastest possible speeds at the lowest possible price. The ISP's can offer different contracts but there should always be an uncapped option, even if they have a dozen different deals.

I think Google's contention that they wouldn't have gotten where they were without net neutrality is a serious message that the government should be taking on board. The Tories claim to love market-driven competition, but in reality I think this shows they love big business more - this will create yet another uneven playing field for big business and everyone else.

It preserves the status quo for big business. New upstarts will have a much harder time getting a start. So bad for consumers as well.