A number of UK internet service providers (ISPs) have signed up to a voluntary code of practice that generally requires them to ensure that they are offering "full and open internet access" to their customers. BT, BSkyB, O2 and TalkTalk are among 10 ISPs to commit to the Open Internet Code of Practice (9-page / 52KB PDF). …
mmmm...is this ISPspeak for...
....restricted access in a open and full way. It certainly doesn't feel like all you can eat access
So, they're offering full and open internet access
With traffic management.
Blocking off sites such as pirate bay etc
but its 100% open with nothing blocked.
They really need an avatar on here of a guy smashing his face into a desk.
Traffic management doesn't block anything, it simply slows it down. Annoying but still "open".
Blocking of sites with accordance to the law.... well I can't complain about that, they do it anyway.
Your crying about this why?
Traffic management restricts access, that's anything but full and open. This is just a PR campaign that means they can carry on screwing their customers while pretending to offer more than they really are.
Traffic management can slow things down to the point that the service is unusable. If you want to use a real time service that needs 30 Kbps, but you are only allowed 10 Kbps, the service is still available but simply will not work in a way that allows it to be used.
As for blocking of sites; it depends upon your definition of legal. We generally don't have to deal with arbitrary blocking of sites because the current government don't approve of them; but it happens in some parts of the world and could very easily happen here if certain laws pass unapposed.
How would you feel if you had a blog that was "banned" because you chose to highlight certain activities by an MP that you thought his constituents should know about? Or how about a site that you had dedicated to a particular TV programme that you enjoy and want to share with others; but the producers believe that you are in breach of their "copyright" so have you closed down without bringing any legal case against you. Think that it can't happen? It already has.
Why are people upset? Because the ISPs are trying to justify a lack of forward planning. I also suspect that like me, a lot of people are concerned that ISPs believe that they can make a lot more money by controlling what we can access.
They don't see us as customers, just as consumers; and they think that we should accept gratefully what they supply without questioning if it is appropriate or if there are better options.
It doesn't restrict access, it just slows down access.
If there's a crash on the motorway and they slow down the speed limit they're not restricting you from going somewhere, just increasing the time it takes to get there.
Of course where an Internet site is fully dependant on ping times, bandwidth etc then sure, this is restricting the usefulness of it.
You missed the "*"
its UP TO 100% open with nothing blocked
"As for blocking of sites; it depends upon your definition of legal."
Without wishing to go all "MumsNet" on your arse about it, confirmed CP sites are illegal, sites that are committing fraud are illegal, direct download sites with copyrighted material are illegal. Plenty of sites are clearly classed a illegal and the ISPs do have to block them without question.
Re: Mumsnet - Re: waitwaitwait
And as has been seen in other countries, eg Australia, which have tried this sort of nonsense, a whole bunch of other sites have "accidentally" been included in the ban list.
Yes \o/ I point out the wrong points in someones post and get 21 negative votes!
The more you tigthen yuor grip...
...the more systems slip through your fingers.
"with Virgin citing concerns with its wording" -- The words "Full" and "Open"
They've had a lot of problems with advertising recently, so obviously they're being cautious.
Quantitative Specification required...
... or the specification is worthless. If you manage some class of traffic down to 1 Byte per second, you have effectively blocked it.
So in future all the family members who rely on me to support their crappy facebook usage are going to be asking me why they can't access this or that, and it'll be down to the fact they chose the cheapest access package the ISP offered.
Honestly, expecting end users to understand how to actually spell "network access" let alone have a clue what it means would be a step too far.
More corporate shit-speak.
Ok, as a long time internet user, to the best of my knowledge (at least in Blighty) the interwebs has ALWAYS been free and open. If i wanted to look at porn, i could go to any number of free sites. If i wanted a long dead TV program, i could use torrent, or usenet, or any number of file sharing systems. If i wanted to piss of the bigwigs in the music industry, once again, obtaining the latest album, deleting the other 12 pieces of aural excrement was easy. SO WHATS FUCKING CHANGED?
1. Porn, the gubbermint think that i should have to opt in to watch my filth??? Never had to before? Why now? Poorly disguised attempt to get a million more law abiding citizens on some sort of perv register they shouldn't have to be on....
2.TV/Films. They are now waking up to the fact that digital media and file sharing means now, i can listen before i buy, watch before i buy or, indeed, just listen and watch and never buy!
This is all bollocks that make sheeple feel they are getting some positive, deciding action and some sort of service improvement, when all whats really happening is the interwebs is slowly being throttled to fit a business/gubbermint mandate that gives them free reign to do what the fuck they want....
This ultimately gives ISP's a legal framework to traffic shape at will, block sites at a whim or monitor an individuals usage all with the ribbon wrap-around as an "improved service to our customers"..
Lying bastards.......Should shoot the fucking lot of em... Viva la revolution....
PS, the worst thing is, they think we cant see this.......
Hmmmm so ISP's will not be able to sell a restricted product as "internet access"
the question is how many isp's are currently selling internet access?
I see a lot advertising the following products...
fibre optic broadband
high speed web
all they have agreed to do is not sell a restricted product under a name that is not generally used any more
50 ways to.......
The British have many, many ways to say, "It's not going to happen".
"Best effort" is one of the classics.
I bet the Goventards regret privatising BT now we have interwebz
If they hadn't, the small indy competitors would have gone bust yonks ago and as for BT itself - all internet usage would be goventard approved - each browsing session would start with you logging in with your national insurance number (which would be linked to your government mandated facebook account at this stage in time) on the gpo.uk.gov website.
All emails, voip calls and IMs would be logged, all file-sharing would be blocked, you'd pay the GPO/BT an hourly usage fee and when you logged off, your computer speakers would blare out the national anthem, akin to BBC1 closing down for the night in the "olden days" aka pre 1997!
They'd bloody love that, they wouldn't need their new ninteen-eighty-four style laws, they already exist and we'd be all moaning about how great America is because they have unrestricted lolcats and we dont!
Sorry, I realise it may sound like little of what I said has any relevance to the article - sod it I'm posting it anyway as the idea of everyone's PCs and tablets playing the national anthem when you finish a browsing sesh has me giggling! That's gotta be worth at least one upvote surely!
Re: I bet the Goventards regret privatising BT now we have interwebz
After which the screen display "collapses" to a little white dot or
a test card with the current incumbent of No10 playing school with the members of the cabinet.
Re: I bet the Goventards regret privatising BT now we have interwebz
You can have net neutrality
The two are mutually exclusive. If you have one, you don't have the other, no matter how much marketing bollocks you wrap around it.
Supported by Stalk Stalk, opposed by Virgin, one of Phorn's few UK customers
Do you trust *any* of these f***ers?
Maybe very specific types traffic management can be justified. And court orders, OK, not much they can do about that. But last I heard, using the IWF blacklist was voluntary. So they're apparently trying to tell us the voluntarily blocking certain pages is consistent with offering "full and open" internet. What a complete and utter sham.
Where is the commitment to never impose a Phorm like system on users without their knowledge or using some ineffectual opt-out.
- Tricked by satire? Get all your news from Facebook? You're in luck, dummy
- Google straps on Jetpac: An app to find hipsters, women in foreign cities
- Updated Microsoft Azure goes TITSUP (Total Inability To Support Usual Performance)
- The Return of BSOD: Does ANYONE trust Microsoft patches?
- Munich considers dumping Linux for ... GULP ... Windows!