Internet: FCC says ISPs cannot strangle supply

The uproar over "traffic shaping" or limiting or blocking access to certain services such as BitTorrent has been developing for several months.

In the UK, ISPs blamed the BBC's iPlayer not for having a stupid name, nor even for its rubbish interface but for being so popular that their own users overloaded their systems watching and downloading popular TV programmes.

It's hardly surprising: take our own graphics ads for example: a 200 x 200 static block takes up 10kb. The same size with moving graphics in Flash takes up 120kb. Now imagine the amount of bandwidth needed to bring up a full screen, full motion video that runs for, say, 45 minutes.

The BBC rightly said "we make content available. How people access it is a matter between them and their ISP."

Over in Canada, Rogers - which in a move of pure irony broadcasts internet TV - was accused of "shaping" traffic. What that amounts to is that users would find that their system slowed down the more they downloaded.

Many users do not consider streaming in the same way as downloading: if they click the "save as" button, they know that x GB is being saved to their computer: they know that is downloading.

But clicking on a browser window when stuff appears there is not seen in the same way - although exactly the same volume of data is transferred. Indeed, because of the way web browsers operate, it is often "cached" or saved on the local PC anyway. Software is available to watch files stored in the cache, so providing locally run repeats.

But in the USA, the row over ISPs controlling volumes or speeds or even access to certain services has turned into a major issue involving the Federal Communications Commission.

And now, proposals from the FCC make its position clear. The FCC will not make regulations that permit the restriction of bandwidth or control access to certain services.

What the FCC says is that the internet must be "neutral." In effect, what he is saying is that traffic on the superhighway must flow unimpeded - and that the same measures must apply to both landline and wireless operators.

That is going to cause great concern - for wireless operators have until now placed strict restrictions on video and download except those from their own services. They say it's to protect the network from being overloaded and to allow the deployment of specialised services and infrastructure but, one suspects not entirely coincidentally, it also provides a near- monopoly on the production of services.

FCC Chairman Julius Genachowski yesterday published proposals that would prevent blocking of ports required for peer-to-peer services and voice over IP telephones.

All of this is, one might consider, simple.

All ISPs have to do is change their business model: instead of flat-rate, unlimited plans that are actually limited by a vague "fair use" policy, come clean. Say "you can download x at a speed of y for which you will pay z." More volume or more speed, would equal a higher price.

But the FCC intends to put kybosh on that, too. Even President Obama has said that access should be unrestricted and heavier users should not be charged a higher price, even for higher speeds.