| Quote from: thisoldman |
I, like many thousands of users dislike traffic management , but i accept that in the interests of net neutrality, such policies may be essential inorder to ensure fair play for all users .
However the new plus prod add on would allow those fortunate enough to afford another payment, to avoid the traffic management and obtain line speed at all times.
This destroys the whole argument of net neutrality and the raison-detre behind traffic management policies.
|
I'd like to explore your argument here deeper - but I want to do it without bringing 'net neutrality' into it - because we obviously have different beliefs about what 'net neutrality' actually means.
Your argument here seems to be that it is fundamentally wrong for Plusnet to be able to offer 2 different classes of service at 2 different pricepoints because it is unfair. That people who can afford to pay more for a better, or more exclusive, service should be denied the right to do this. Is that right?
If so, is that belief founded on the fact that you are worried because it is a single ISP trying to offer the 2 levels of service? Would you be OK if the lower level of service came from one ISP called LessNet and the higher level of service came from a totally different ISP called MoreNet? Or does your definition of fairness cross ISP boundaries, and demand that all subscribers to all services at all ISPs should all get the same level of service?
Does your belief change if the extra level of service is fully paid-for by the higher subscription payments? What if the payments actually subsidise the lower service level? Or is the main worry that they would be leeching from the standard subscribers?
You see, this statement:
| Quote |
To repeat the aetiology of this post..........net neutrality is a principle that prevents isp,s from offering a superior service to customers who pay extra.
|
makes it seem that you want everyone's service to be identical. (and that's not everyone's definition of net neutrality either)
Now, the problem as I see it is that no-one wants an identical service. Most people seem to want a cheap ISP service, tagged alongside their TV and/or Phone package. The economics of such a service lead to poor service, high congestion during peak hours, and traffic management compromises.
But some people want a different service. Perhaps they want VPNs rather than P2P, or symmetric speeds rather than asymmetric, or a different set of traffic management compromises. Should they be allowed to pay for what they need? Or be forced to accept someone else's definition of 'service'?
To me, the concept of being 'fair' is to get your fair share relative to the service level you are paying for. You are then free to opt to pay for the level of service that you want - or can afford - and then expect to get your fair share of it.
It seems that the majority of ISPs agree here. What they are seeking from Ofcom is that each ISPs traffic management policy is transparent, and understandable to consumers. And if a consumer wants to swap ISP because of those policies, then it is easy to do. The ISP's want to have different service levels, and want to appeal to different market segments. They want to make the Internet suitable for everyone's needs.
| Quote |
The new plusnet product destroys the principle of net neutrality.
|
If Plusnet can make the Pro package work for the money, and it does no damage, relatively, to the other packages, then I'm not worried. PN are already transparent about exactly what traffic management goes on - and you are free to judge whether you are getting what you pay for within your chosen service level.
| Quote |
I accept that "money" talks and that in our society people are used to jumping the system be it education or private medical care.
|
now there are a couple of interesting topics to pick as a contrast. Where education & medical care is publicly-funded, the rich have access to an identical service-level, but it costs them a lot more (due to their higher taxes). Are you saying that is a fair model to follow instead?
| Quote |
But what i esentially find hard to swallow is plus net on the one hand arguing the case for traffic management and then on the othe rhand appearing to demolish that principle by allowing the well heeled customers to by pass such restrictions.
|
I'm not sure why this demolishes the principle. Surely it just reinforces the fact that bandwidth, capacity, costs money. But most people in this country fail to grasp this fact.
What they argue is that to provide the service
economically and competitively, they need traffic management - because most consumers demand a cheap service. The responses to Ofcom state this is the case for other ISPs too. Use of traffic management allows ISPs to handle the bandwidth demands at busy-hour by spreading the load fairly. And this in turn means they don't have to buy extra bandwidth from BT that is only used in those busiest hours. By spreading the load, they can provide a good service at a good price.
But the extra £5pm goes to buying extra bandwidth for peak usage - and that extra bandwidth allows the management rules to be relaxed during the busy-hours (which is the only time that matters, as prioritisation doesn't matter outside the peak hours).
Co-incidentally, that extra bandwidth that was purchased for peak hours is now available to all users in off-peak. So standard subscribers gain from the existence of thePro package!
Also remember that there are 2 other aspects of the Pro package that *are* still managed: (1) the protocols still follow the prioritisation rules, and (2) management still gets applied during emergency overloads.
| Quote |
Apart from looking like the hand of a hypocrite, Plus net are in danger of becoming little more than a rent boy to those who have money to throw around.
|
But now you are just arguing against capitalism, and a fair market. And that is what ofcom's job is to ensure. Don't you agree with the principle of paying for what you use?
| Quote |
Either plusnet should stick to the inherent principle of net neutrality or abandon any such pretence.
|
Here we get back to the definition of 'net neutrality'. Ofcom haven't defined what it means yet - even the Americans haven't agreed what they want it to mean - and as so often happens, it has become a political nail for obsessive people to hammer on.
The best thing we can currently fall back on is a definition of 'fair'. And so long as the peak-hours bandwidth being used by the Pro users matches up reasonably with the peak-hours bandwidth they are buying, I'm not going to be worried - and I'm not a Pro user. The extra 40% (extra pro) or 80% (value pro) they pay is a hefty amount extra, as most of it is focussed on that one use - peak bandwidth.
| Quote |
An ISP which has one policy for some customers and another policy for other customers will most certainly arouse the wrath of Ofcom
through the disquiet expressed by users to them, and i already have an assurance from Ofcom that they will take a long hard look at Plusnet's add on product.
|
The problem here is that every ISP has multiple packages, with different policies - and these aren't incurring the wrath of Ofcom. In fact, they aren't appearing on *any* ISPs concern list during the consultation.
Ofcom certainly do NOT agree with your principle that consumers should get identical service. Ofcom very much believes in the power of the free market, with variable prices and service levels, so long as it is transparent, and that consumers aren't locked in.
Finally, I get back to your opening statement. I actually AGREE with traffic management. I'd rather accept some known limitations than have my Internet usage borked by some P2P jockey next door. I think it buys me more of a guarantee of fair usage than, say, an ISP with an unlimited package and no means of managing traffic. In this sense, I agree with KCOM - "Traffic Management
is net neutrality".
Plusnet Customer
Using FTTC since 2011. Currently on 80/20 Unlimited Fibre Extra.
