1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Net neutrality integrated into Dutch law

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by arcticstoat, 24 Jun 2011.

  1. boggsi

    boggsi New Member

    Joined:
    30 Aug 2005
    Posts:
    117
    Likes Received:
    0
    As far as I can gather, Net neutrality doesn't prevent you from imposing limits on use or times that you use it just says "data is data".

    i.e. you can't charge extra just because someone is using Skype from a mobile connection or traffic shape because someone is using a torrent. Sounds fair to me.
     
  2. Er-El

    Er-El Member

    Joined:
    31 May 2008
    Posts:
    482
    Likes Received:
    10
    In what way does this account for any unintended consequences?









    Hint:
    It doesn't.
     
  3. TWeaK

    TWeaK Member

    Joined:
    28 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    521
    Likes Received:
    7
    I think I read on Ars a while back that the actual cost for bandwidth is minimal (a few pennies per gigabyte) for wireline connections. Obviously for mobile connections this would be higher, but we're still not talking massive amounts. Consumers in the UK can pay £20 a month for broadband and be limited to 30 GB. All the while telecomms companies are making record profits year on year yet investment in infrastructure isn't keeping up (not sure where we stand in the UK - we seem to be getting some improvements, even if we're still miles behind many other countries - but in the US investment is declining).

    @edit: Just wanted to add that the points on bandwidth might seem a bit off-topic, but actually one of the main reasons used for traffic shaping and prioritisation is that there is a limit on available bandwidth. This is true, of course, but it's being held back in many countries by a lack of investment.

    I'm generally against regulation, however with the situation as it is governments do need to step in to keep the internet free and as good as we know it. BT provide a variety of TV services now, do we want to leave it up to them what priority Netflix (or its equivalent, whenever we get it) has over their networks? I'll bet good money that if they have their way, it'll be at the bottom of their QoS lists, if not crippled.
     
    Last edited: 25 Jun 2011
  4. John_T

    John_T Member

    Joined:
    3 Aug 2009
    Posts:
    528
    Likes Received:
    20
    I didn't assume or say that, you're the one making assumptions there - I clearly referenced Labour in the context of being the last government for 13 years. Generally speaking, when people don't like whatever the government are doing they say 'the government', and when they want to start party political point scoring they bring up the party name, (or nickname).




    I agree with that though. But then with all three major parties having their hierarchies derived of upper-middle-class 'Oxbridge' graduates, (usually PPE) with negligible real world work experience, I think there's quite a lot they don't understand or care enough about...


    This is precisely the problem with not enshrining net-neutrality.

    Allowing a totally 'free-enterprise' or 'capitalist' approach with no oversight actually ends up running the risk of the internet becoming a closed shop in certain areas, both anti-competitive and monopolistic - as a small handful of well established players become able to dominate the market: Whether it's ISP's who also run their own services, or simply large established players who can afford to pay to prioritise their traffic, thus shutting out the possibility of much smaller rivals being allowed to grow and flourish.

    It's a fairly simple argument, it's amazing how so many or our MP's from across the political spectrum just don't seem to grasp it.
     
  5. lp1988

    lp1988 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    24 Jun 2008
    Posts:
    1,288
    Likes Received:
    64
    Have to say that I disagree with you there, if the product or services a company offer is no longer relevant that company has to die or change, it is that simple. we shouldn't try to protect a certain company on the basis that they have to make money.

    And these companies has changed dramatically in the last few years, from simply providing access for calls/SMS to offering a wide range of services from internet, music, video into satellite GPS tracking. while some of these sources of revenue are becoming extinct the other services may be the sole purpose of these companies in a few years.
     
  6. timevans999

    timevans999 old modders friend

    Joined:
    16 Mar 2010
    Posts:
    54
    Likes Received:
    1
    typical of mobile operators
     
  7. stonedsurd

    stonedsurd Is a cackling Yuletide Belgian

    Joined:
    11 Mar 2009
    Posts:
    7,715
    Likes Received:
    272
    This.
     
  8. Ayrto

    Ayrto New Member

    Joined:
    20 Jun 2007
    Posts:
    255
    Likes Received:
    3
    Last edited: 26 Jun 2011
  9. Anfield

    Anfield Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    15 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    5,250
    Likes Received:
    420
    Meh... nice in theory, but lets face it, all it will achieve is a excuse to further raise the price per MB of Data transferred.
     
  10. [USRF]Obiwan

    [USRF]Obiwan New Member

    Joined:
    9 Apr 2003
    Posts:
    1,721
    Likes Received:
    5
    One of the rare occasions my government has done something good...

    If you think of it, the operators are thiefs!

    You pay for your phone subscription (mobile/calling/sms)
    Then on top of that you pay a monthly fee for your mobile internet connection.
    And now the operators want to charge for the protocols you use on that internet connection.

    It's because the use of sms is falling down quickly. Since you can put msn on your phone and use that to keep in touch with your friends. No extra costs per sms message.

    But the operators will probably get around it by lowering the data you may use per month to 100kb and charge 50cents for every exta 100kb you use...
     
  11. jhng

    jhng New Member

    Joined:
    15 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    102
    Likes Received:
    2
    Good. That's the way it should be. Because the next step will be one of the operators charging 49 cents for each 150KB in order to attract a bigger share of the market.

    Rinse and repeat a few times and eventually we end up with a sensible price range for data transmission (irrespective of what that data actually is) which is affordable for the vast majority and allows the service providers to remain solvent.

    (or at least that's the theory...)
     
  12. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,251
    Likes Received:
    88
    Other way around..if you have a "flatrate" mobile internet connection, and use skype, you won't NEED mobile/calling/SMS anymore.

    So they're blocking Skype, to sell you mobile/phone/SMS.
     
  13. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,251
    Likes Received:
    88
    Which is effin expensive as it is...here anyway.:waah:
     
  14. IonKnight

    IonKnight New Member

    Joined:
    17 Jun 2011
    Posts:
    16
    Likes Received:
    1
    I’m happy for the Dutch least they have a government trying to go in the right direction. However more than anything I can guess that teleco companies are terrified that everyone will just use that little more data. If the Dutch are anything like us there 3G usage must be nasty, there infrastructure is probably close to breaking point and calls and SMS use a different network. So I can understand why they might have tried to block this but hey will be good for us in the UK we can check to see what happens over there to see if there are any consequences.

    Also in regards to the IP traffic shaping is just another way they make money off something twice, so I want to see that gone asap (lol like I’ll ever get it in the UK :p). To it simply telecoms operators have a little bit of a fair reason to complain about this, but ISP's, no. The original implementation of the ISP's didn't have this as a service, however it's different for telecoms as they might actually loose a main service they have been providing for decades.
     
  15. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,251
    Likes Received:
    88
    ... are you sure about the "Calls and SMS use a different ork than Data" part? :eyebrow:
     
  16. Gigglebyte

    Gigglebyte :3

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2011
    Posts:
    59
    Likes Received:
    1
    If it was that simple it would be nice, unfortunately all date providers will most likely abuse their market power and agree to keep their prices within a specified range and not let competition thrive and instead work together (illegally) secure high rates for data transmission.
     
Tags: Add Tags

Share This Page