In the UK BT's retail Broadband service IPTV traffic gets top priority marking. To overcome any future claims of discriminatory practice, the assured IPTV bandwidth is accounted for separately. The BT Retail division purchase the assured bandwidth (a separate queue, and separate backhaul capacity) from its wholesale division and then bundles it with their retail broadband offer. Other ISPs if they choose can invest in the same wholesale product. In UK regulatory terms, this will be categorised as discriminatory, BUT, not unfairly so, because 1) other suppliers have access to the same wholesale components and 2) UK customers have a choice of supplier. Avoided (or missed), crucially is the prioritisation of the IPTV traffic over all other traffic as part of the total service. Crucially, the customer has no control over the markings or change in quality markings. Also there are only 300k users, many very light users, so no outcry as yet but precedences are being set, and precedence's can take years to change. More subtle, more discriminatory is the BT VOIP service. Again the bandwidth is accounted for separately (a line in a cross divisional money transfer) to avoid claims of unfair discrimination, but the marking or colouring of the VOIP traffic with reference to other VOIP traffic is not disclosed. This is something Skype would need to take to Ofcom (our FCC), and under the EC Telecoms Package, their only recourse will be under comeptition law. It is expected that BT would then say, that they would be happy to mark the traffic if Skype paid for the bandwidth! This would be an interesting one to push because it is not just bandwidth but a prioritisation marking. The issue has not been discussed, as the BT Voip service is not heavily used as it is carefully positioned as a second line service to the main PSTN. The provision of VPN or VLAN based services, be it to work or healthcare makes it even more essential that the total potential of my connectivity is made known to me and any prioritisation is under the users control.
This is why I am such a big fan of the FCC's proposed fifth principal. Transparency is key. The alternative approach of having our services defined by competitive behaviour and non-discriminatory practices can be manipulated to sustain existing billable services. There is no substitute for transparency and a clear division between bit transport and the services being offered on that transport. Regards Mike Kiely [email protected] Date: Fri, 23 Oct 2009 14:00:27 -0500 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [ NNSquad ] Consumption Based Broadband It seems obvious consumption based broadband will be used to circumvent any prioritization rules which are enacted via NN. If an ISP enters into an agreement with Apple so their HD movies don't count against the broadband meter NetFlix, et. al. will be at a disadvantage. Not to mention an ISP could direct traffic to their own competing service that didn't ring up bandwidth charges. Would an end user be inclined to pay Apple $5 for an HD movie plus a $2 bandwidth fee or rent the same movie from their ISP for $6? What sort of laws are in place that would prevent such an arrangement? Is this covered by the proposed NN regulations? Joe -- Joe Uelk [email protected]
