Original URL: https://www.theregister.com/2009/03/12/subscription_only_internet/

UK.gov thinks internet should be run like BSkyB

Makes case with Wikipedia cut'n'paste

By Jane Fae

Posted in Networks, 12th March 2009 13:08 GMT

Which is worse: the fact that the UK government appears to favour replacing free access to the internet with a model that looks suspiciously like that of a cable TV network, or that whoever helped draft this measure cut-and-pasted text from Wikipedia in support of it?

The threat to internet access arose during discussion of the "Telecoms Package", which is a set of five European Directives regulating electronic communication networks currently under discussion. Decisions taken now are likely to set the business model for how the internet will operate in Europe for years to come.

One of the key groups campaigning for continued open access to the internet is French campaigning group La Quadrature du Net. According to La Quadrature, amendments (pdf) have been circulated recently by the British Government that would have the dual effect of introducing conditions of access to the internet – the subscription TV approach – and secondly, overriding the end-to-end principle of the internet.

Instead of users having virtually free access to the entire net, internet providers would be allowed to limit the number of websites that users can access, in exchange for a lower fee.

Are they crying wolf? Or do users really have something to fear from current manoeuvrings? Again, according to La Quadrature, the role of the national regulator would change from that of protecting users' fundamental rights to information, culture and public services, to endorsing the new business model.

The UK has put forward amended text for article 8(4)(g) of one of the key directives in the Telecoms Package - the Framework Directive. Previously, it set out the duties of national regulators as, inter alia, applying the principle that end-users should be able to access and distribute information or run applications and services of their choice.

However, if the amendment is accepted, the directive will instead state that “there should be transparency of conditions under which services are provided, including information on the conditions of access to and/or use of applications and services, and of any traffic management policies".

Writing for IPtegrity, internet analyst Monica Horten points out that this language is curiously reminiscent of the language already used in the Conditional Access Directive (Directive 98/84/EC) which concerns protection of copyright on satellite and cable television systems.

She further points out that the subscription television model is further alluded to in the ‘Rationale' for the amendments: "We are already familiar with this in the broadcasting world, where certain cable or satellite operators may enter into exclusive agreements with content providers (like Sky and Premier League football). Similar arrangements may also exist in the electronic communications world."

Whether this will be passed in Europe remains to be seen. One effect of such a law would be to put pressure on the business models of leading players on the internet, such as Google, by restricting site availability to only those subscribers paying for access to it.

Imagine, for a moment, a world in which half the ISPs permitted their customers to access Google (or even Wikipedia) and the other half did not.

It is the sheer enormity of these effects that underpin the hopes of those who back the status quo. Nor are these proposals without their opponents within Europe itself. At time of writing, the main support for them – if support is found – comes from within the Council of Ministers, which represents the direct input of national governments into the European Union.

However, at least two commissioners – Meglena Kuneva, commissioner for Consumer Protection, and the Commissioner for Information Society, Viviane Reding – have made recent speeches indicating their commitment to a free and open internet.

These proposals are also likely to come under heavy criticism from the European Parliament, as they may well be in breach of the European Charter of Fundamental rights, Article 10, which states that everyone has the right "to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers".

As for the raid on Wikipedia, Monica Horten has done some of her own sleuthing, and compared the text of the recital accompanying the UK amendment, which sets out a definition of traffic management.

According to an anonymous UK civil servant: "Traffic management policies are the procedures put in place by the provider in order to measure and control traffic on a network link so as to avoid filling the link to capacity or overfilling the link, which would result in network congestion and poor performance."

Whereas, according to Wikipedia, "bandwidth management is the process of measuring and controlling the communications (traffic, packets) on a network link, to avoid filling the link to capacity or overfilling the link, which would result in network congestion and poor performance".

Any similarities between the two versions are without doubt purely coincidental. ®