ISPreview Study Finds Stricter UK Internet Restrictions Risk Mass ISP Migrations
A new ISPreview.co.uk survey of 685 internet users in the United Kingdom (UK) has revealed that 93.5 Percent would be "Angry" if their broadband provider began limiting access to popular online content or services (e.g. Skype, YouTube etc.) and most of those would switch ISP in order to avoid it.
London, United Kingdom, June 15, 2011 --(PR.com)-- e results from 685 respondents to ISPreview.co.uk's latest monthly survey has revealed that 73% of Internet users in the UK are familiar with Net Neutrality (i.e. the principal of treating all internet traffic as equal) and 93.5% said they would be "Angry" if their broadband ISP began limiting access to popular online content or services (e.g. Skype, YouTube etc.). So angry in fact that 91% would be ready to switch provider if similarly tough restrictions were placed on their access.
The study highlights just how important internet access is to consumers and helps to reinforce recent UK government and European Commission (EC) guidelines, which called for ISPs to ensure that consumers always have access to all legal online content and services. However, this does not strictly prevent ISPs from using existing Traffic Management systems to throttle (slow) connectivity to certain content and services in order to extract a commercial gain.
The primary concern is that some ISPs might deliberately force major content providers (e.g. Skype, Google, Facebook, BBC iPlayer etc.) onto a slower link, which could potentially damage their quality and the end-users experience of using them. To avoid this the content provider would need to pay a charge that allows them to reach the ISPs customers through an unimpeded link.
"In theory consumers should benefit from a model where content providers pay because it would assist in keeping current broadband prices to a bare minimum," remarked ISPreview.co.uk's Founder, Mark Jackson. "But in practice there could be serious repercussions, both for content providers and potentially ISPs too."
An often overlooked and yet incredibly crucial part of the wider Net Neutrality debate is that content providers have already paid a bill for their bandwidth. Whether it's a website or some other form of online content, all must pay somebody to deliver their services online. On top of that a number of major content providers, such as Skype, continue to lose millions each year and have difficulty turning a profit.
"It's not hard to imagine the chaos that could ensue if thousands of ISPs from around the world suddenly began demanding payments from content providers. Some would simply go out of business, thus harming the very content that makes the internet worth visiting in the first place and putting future innovation at risk. One might reasonably ask, if content providers are forced pay ISPs in order to get seen then perhaps ISPs should also pay for the content providers bandwidth bills. Unsurprisingly that hasn't happened," continued Jackson.
Less than half (42%) of the consumers questioned by ISPreview.co.uk agreed that customers should foot the bill for their own consumption of internet content, which is the normal way of doing things (i.e. the same way you pay for your gas or water supply), while 26% felt that content providers should pay.
###
The study highlights just how important internet access is to consumers and helps to reinforce recent UK government and European Commission (EC) guidelines, which called for ISPs to ensure that consumers always have access to all legal online content and services. However, this does not strictly prevent ISPs from using existing Traffic Management systems to throttle (slow) connectivity to certain content and services in order to extract a commercial gain.
The primary concern is that some ISPs might deliberately force major content providers (e.g. Skype, Google, Facebook, BBC iPlayer etc.) onto a slower link, which could potentially damage their quality and the end-users experience of using them. To avoid this the content provider would need to pay a charge that allows them to reach the ISPs customers through an unimpeded link.
"In theory consumers should benefit from a model where content providers pay because it would assist in keeping current broadband prices to a bare minimum," remarked ISPreview.co.uk's Founder, Mark Jackson. "But in practice there could be serious repercussions, both for content providers and potentially ISPs too."
An often overlooked and yet incredibly crucial part of the wider Net Neutrality debate is that content providers have already paid a bill for their bandwidth. Whether it's a website or some other form of online content, all must pay somebody to deliver their services online. On top of that a number of major content providers, such as Skype, continue to lose millions each year and have difficulty turning a profit.
"It's not hard to imagine the chaos that could ensue if thousands of ISPs from around the world suddenly began demanding payments from content providers. Some would simply go out of business, thus harming the very content that makes the internet worth visiting in the first place and putting future innovation at risk. One might reasonably ask, if content providers are forced pay ISPs in order to get seen then perhaps ISPs should also pay for the content providers bandwidth bills. Unsurprisingly that hasn't happened," continued Jackson.
Less than half (42%) of the consumers questioned by ISPreview.co.uk agreed that customers should foot the bill for their own consumption of internet content, which is the normal way of doing things (i.e. the same way you pay for your gas or water supply), while 26% felt that content providers should pay.
###
Contact
ISPreview.co.uk
Mark Jackson
440120278234
www.ispreview.co.uk
Mark Jackson
440120278234
www.ispreview.co.uk
Contact
Categories