UK Eyes Scaling Back Net Neutrality Rules For No Coherent Reason
from the policy-purgatory dept
Tell me if any of this sounds familiar: UK telecom regulator Ofcom is proposing that the country scale back popular net neutrality rules under the claim that the rules are harming innovation.
The UK had adopted net neutrality as part of its membership in the EU. With that membership discarded, Ofcom is now claiming the rules should be rolled back. But the reasons they provide, that the basic rules were somehow preventing ISPs from innovating and providing price cuts, are bullshit.
You wouldn’t know that from reading this Bloomberg report on the proposal, which stenographs the following industry claim completely without context or skepticism:
Internet service providers should be allowed to offer a broader range of premium packages on a wider variety of parameters such as latency, and could include discounted tariffs during off-peak hours, according to proposals from the watchdog published Friday.
“The net neutrality rules constrain the activities of broadband providers, and could be restricting their ability to develop new services and manage their networks,” Ofcom said in the report.
As we’ve covered extensively, net neutrality rules are stopgap measures designed to stop telecom companies from abusing their uncompetitive market power to harm competitors or rip off captive subscribers. You wouldn’t need such rules if these markets had healthy broadband competition, but we don’t have competition thanks to rampant regulatory and political corruption.
There’s absolutely nothing about the EU and UK net neutrality rules preventing ISPs from innovating or offering price cuts. They don’t innovate or offer price cuts because of a lack of competition. It’s all a big dumb corrupt purgatorial policy loop, and a lovely example of regulatory capture, all framed by outlets like Bloomberg as serious adult policymaking, despite being brutally unpopular with the public.
As we’ve been covering, UK and EU ISPs alike have also desperately glommed on to the telecom industry talking point (started here in the US) that Big Tech should give Big Telecom billions in additional dollars for no coherent reason. That’s also parroted again here by Bloomberg un-skeptically and with absolutely no context:
UK internet service provider TalkTalk Telecom Group Ltd welcomed the guidance.
“We think the rules can and should support innovation and network efficiency,” a spokeswoman said. “In addition, content providers should in some cases be able to support network capacity growth while also ensuring consumers continue to have unrestricted access to content.”
This claim that “Big Tech” gets a free ride on the internet and should throw billions of dollars at the telecom industry is very hot right now. Telecom lobbyists have exploited legitimate animosity against tech giants to convince captured lawmakers that a Big Tech tax is a great idea. Despite the fact that corruption means telecom subsidies very often wind up being thrown in the toilet without subsidy reform.
Again, western governments aren’t willing to stand up to telecom monopolies due to corruption. The best we got were some very basic, imperfect stopgap measures to try and rein in telecom monopoly power. But corruption and regulatory capture ensured those rules were short lived in the US. And now, apparently, a scaling back is planned for the UK that’s not based on any coherent logic.
Of course the public and press are generally bored by net neutrality, so nobody much cares. I’d doubt that more than a small handful of readers ever made it to this point in this story, their eyes having glazed over in the first paragraph. I might as well write gibberish like stinky pony lollipop farts in this sentence, since telecom policy has become too boring for anybody to care much about in the Big Tech era.
So we continue to get what we get in the US, Canada, and UK. Monopoly telecom domination, poor service, high prices, spotty availability, slow speeds, with atrocious customer service, all overseen by captured regulators that genuinely could not give any less of a shit about consumer welfare or the litany of obvious harms caused by concentrated telecom monopoly power.
Filed Under: fcc, high speed internet, monopoly power, net neutrality, ofcom, telecom, uk


Comments on “UK Eyes Scaling Back Net Neutrality Rules For No Coherent Reason”
The problem in the UK is our so called “government” has a large number of rabid Brexit politicians who want to remove all trace of EU regulations regardless of the harm it inflicts, purely because they are from the EU.
Add in a slightly increased level of cronyism and corruption and this is what you get – see also, the removal of EU privacy laws so they can monetise our data (including health). Unfortunately, this is just the start
Re:
Somebody at MI5 had better check if Boris Johnson and Liz Truss are Boris Badenov and Natashe Fatale in disguise.
Easy now Karl....
Time for a cup of tea, or a pint….we DO care…and appreciate the vigilance…
Stinky Pony Lollipops?
Are we talking generic or My Little Pony lollipops?
Surely the proposal isn't endorsing ...
Nice internet connection you have there. Hate to see what it would be like with an additional arbitrary 400 ms delay returning each packet, wouldn’t it? I’m sure you can cough up an additional £2.50 per month for our Infrastructure+ plan…
Re:
In the UK, the ISP’s do not build the infrastructure, they share the on built and maintained by Openreach.
Re: Re:
OpenReach seems to use DSL and fibre only. Are cable modems not popular in the UK?
Re: Re: Re: Cable TV isn’t as common
I haven’t lived there for over 20 years but when I did cable TV was only just starting to get installed in the built-up areas. Many households probably still get OTA digital TV or have a satellite dish.
Re: Re: Re:
no, while they do exist, they are very uncommon (I believe they are used with some FTTC connections) and I have only seen one. That said, the ADSL connections here range from actually ok (like reasonably low-latency and bandwiths high enough even for fairly demanding residential use) to absolute crap (where I live, its 16mbps up, less than 1mbps down) and yes, I do live in London (but less than 1km away you can find the actually ok DSL).
FTTP connections are pretty spread out, and some ISPS (think virgin media, and the newer fibre providers hyperoptic, g.network, community fibre) provide their own, but the majority use the network infrastructure of Openreach (any well-established ISP that has been around for a while basically, with the aforementioned exception of virgin media)
One hundred years from now, if we still don’t implement “net neutrality” rules in the United States, statists will still be shrilly screaming at the sky the need for it because “internet providers will implement strangleholds in seconds if we don’t!” They still haven’t, even after decades of “net neutrality”, but the need to control others is strong with the statists.
And at two hundred years without “net neutrality” (and still no ill effects on the users) they’ll still be screeching like crazed banshees.
In this instance the UK is giving the entire nation an MBE.
Male Bovine Excrement.
Stupidity! The eternal pandemic.
Millions of years and mortality is still the only 100% cure.
'Anti-arson laws are an assault on my home redocorating business!'
Network neutrality rules inhibit ISP business models in the same way that laws against fraud in general do: To the extent that they limit business options it’s by preventing companies from engaging in behavior they shouldn’t be doing in the first place.
We already have this kind of high-ping, low service quality internet plans
It’s called TalkTalk
Some facts about UK Internet
There are currently two main ways to get Internet in the UK. 1. Virgin Media, which is the cable TV company that also retails Internet and telephone access. 2. Any of a large number of ISPs that link to your house over OpenReach phone lines. The net neutrality rules only apply to the retail ISPs, who are all in intense competition with each other. As such they no doubt want to offer differentiated services. However none of them have bandwidth caps so it won’t be “unmetered bandwidth to X” because bandwidth isn’t metered here (thanks to having lots of competition).
And its about to get even better, because OfCom has ruled that OpenReach has to allow competitors access to its ducts and poles. So now we have three companies laying fibre-to-the-home networks: OpenReach (who will still be required to make this bandwidth available to everyone), Toob and CityFibre. The latter are newcomers to the market and have specifically been enabled by the OfCom ruling.
So I don’t think the loss of net neutrality rules is actually a big deal.
Re:
Note: Net Neutrality rules have been proven to protect consumers from price gouging even where there is plenty of competition.
Note: Even Google is for net neutrality here
Citation: https://www.ofcom.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0025/229552/google.pdf