Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Virgin CEO: Net neutrality is 'bollocks'

Mathew Ingram, April 13, 2008 at 3:05 PM EDT

Neil Berkett, the new chief executive officer of Virgin Media (the Internet service provider owned by gazillionaire Richard Branson) isn't the type to settle into a new job before picking a fight, apparently. Although he's only been in the top job for about a month, Berkett has already waded into one of the thorniest issues confronting the company: criticism of the attempt by ISPs such as Virgin Media to control or “throttle” certain kinds of data traffic on their networks.

Some critics charge that this kind of favouritism by Internet providers breaches an important principle known as “net neutrality,” and has implications for freedom of speech, among other things. Internet providers should simply be providing a pipe for data, they argue, and staying out of decisions about whose data is more important or valuable.

Mr. Berkett's response? Net neutrality is “a load of bollocks,” he tells Britain's Television magazine in a recent interview. The company is already doing deals to give certain content providers more favourable treatment, he said, adding that any content companies – including the BBC – which refuse to negotiate such a deal will find their content relegated to what the Virgin CEO referred to as the “bus lanes” of the Internet.

At least you can't accuse him of beating around the bush. No doubt executives at Bell Canada and Rogers Communications, who have also come under fire for throttling certain types of traffic (mostly BitTorrent file-sharing), wish they could get away with that kind of comment.

  1. Kevin Henning from Canada writes: Yes. At least he is up front about it. Given that Virgin is also a content producer, no doubt they also get the fast lane.

    So, the BBC will need to pay for their own access (lets assume for the moment that it isn't Virgin). If the backbone provider gets into the act, then the BBC will need to pay them directly too. And Virgin wants money from the BBC to deliver at high speed to a customer who is already presumably paying for high speed access. So, the BBC will need to pay at least three organizations to transmit high speed data to their customers.
  2. Cowtown boy from Calgary, Canada writes: That's funny coming from Virgin. I'm not sure what they have in Britain, but they have no network or their own in North America. They piggyback on everyone elses stuff over here, including their cellphone network.
  3. Jimmy K from Toronto, Canada writes: Such nonsense will ruin the internet.
  4. Tim Anthony from Winnipeg, Canada writes: The internet is perhaps the last bastion of true equality, of unperverted egalitarianism. Some take advantage of this, but all the Great Powers (ISPs) can say is,

    "SEE!! We TOLD you so, and you didn't listen to us! You just can't trust ordinary people with freedom!! YOU WILL LISTEN TO US NOW"

    In fact, as in all other parallel cases, it is the abusers who should be dealt with. Anything else is Collective Punishment, which was supposed to have gone out with the Concentration Camps, I believe.

    Most abusers can be dealt with easily and cheaply, by cutting them off rather than actively, and expensively, and too-often ineffectively, trying to punish them. But it costs a little more because individual cases must then be evaluated. Yet, it's NOT a huge cost! It should be paid. We all understand that ISPs will pass on their cost increases to us, their customers, thereby coming out with flying colors and a healthy profit. So what's the big deal?

    Methinks they doth protest a little too much...
  5. Angry West Coast Canuck from Canada writes: In the UK, it's currently perfectly legal to advertise "unlimited" internet access at "up to" some really high bandwidth, but then cap usage at some unadvertised limit and never actually provide the upper range of the advertised bandwidth. People have had their accounts withdrawn for "going over the limit" on supposedly "unlimited" accounts. Many providers there do it, including Virgin. So they advertise "unlimited" access at high bandwidth for cut-rates, then wonder why their business model isn't profitable while their customers never end up getting what they thought they paid for. Meanwhile, the ISPs that are truthful in their advertising go under because nobody wants limits when others are advertising no limits - even if ALL those advertising no limits are lying about it.

    Canada has the other problem - we pay more and get less than just about any other country for internet and wireless access. The two or three providers have effectively carved up the country between them, and the consumer can go rot in hell.

    Not to mention the utterly ludicrous and cut-rate (read: cheaparse) ADSL install methods they use here. The UK used those methods when they first rolled out ADSL and found they didn't work. So why is Canada using them? I don't know.
  6. John Oswell from Canada writes: Tim Anthony from Winnipeg says the Internet is the last bastion of true equality - well come down here to the beautiful south shore of Nova Scotia and see what happens at the time the kids in Ontario get out of school and our satellite internet gets throttled to nothing!

    Thank you Xplornet!

    We can however look forward to the province providing broadband everywhere in the province and then it's goodbye to the satellite bandits: $60 for 512Kb - disgusting! Oh by the way Tim how much do you pay in Winnipeg for 5MB - $35 or so.
    True Equality on the interent again!
  7. jeff peters from Canada writes: Of course, the BBC in owned by the British government and he might want to quit shooting off his mouth. The British Parliament could bring in regulations that force Net Neutrality and start to regulate Virgin and others. He might think his new powers allow him to spout off at the mouth but he probably should shut up.
  8. Gronck the realist from Canada writes: Angry west coast Canuck. don't equate internet access and wireless - 2 very different beasts. you're correct about ADSL but that's the phone companies. the cablecos in canada provide one of the world's best internet access services and we know as we do business in Canada, USA, most of Europe and Asia.
  9. Rick La Rose from Ottawa, Canada writes: The Internet should not be legislated. NEVER should we allow the government to regulate the internet. Simple, it's what the Corporations want. If the government regulates the Internet then what occurs is the Corporations will lobby congress or the parliament in exchange for favors (like campaign donations).

    Just leave it as is.
  10. The Wight from Canada writes: Rick La Rose:

    "Just leave it as is."

    Are you nuts?

    There is no "as is". Five years ago, packet shaping was still in the design stages and all data was treated equally, which is probably the Nirvana you are referring to. Since that point, however, almost every provider in the US and Canada has introduced some measure of packet shaping technology. At the best, this means they have already started to prioritize delivery, penalizing bittorrent and other P2P technologies because of the bandwidth use.

    At the worst, they have used this technology to also slow down or impede products from companies that compete with them in some sphere, i.e. VoIP service from Vonage or Sprint, which clearly competes with landline telephone service from the telcos and/or the VoIP services of the cable companies.

    THAT is the status quo ... and it will only get worse.

    Think of it this way ... do you elect the executive of Shaw, Rogers, Telus or Bell? How about Cogeco or Eastlink?

    You DO elect your representatives and so you have at least an avenue to exert influence. Sure, the ISPs will lobby them, but you can too. Without government regulation, you lose even that small voice you would have had.
  11. Gerry Werthers from Vancouver, Canada writes: It's getting so tiresome listening to these arrogant, swelled-nethead executives. So tiring in fact that I think I'll be too tired to go to the Virgin Music Festival this summer. Yawn...ZZzzzz.
  12. J S from Toronto, Canada writes: The internet used to be neutral. It's been going corporate for some time now. Don't worry - you'll be able to purchase an unthrottled account for an extra... or remain with your current 'standard' service pack but the price is increasing to... or you can take advantage of this great 'light' package we have for the same cost as you're paying now. This is the way of the internet. Next will be postage for e-mail traffic.
  13. Jason Lamarche from Vancouver, Canada writes: Net Neutrality is THE single most important issue at stake in the world today, IMO.

    I am not joking, without the ability for humankind to freely communicate and organize with each other via the internet our planet is surely doomed in every sense of the word.

    Net Neutrality... youtube it!

    Shame on Virgin Media for promoting the worst corporate policy of all time!

    http://www.TheBusinessStudent.com
  14. phil berg from Canada writes: the fact that most sites are not on the same network as the client, means you've got multiple exchanges to go through, not all are going to use the same technology; if one exchange gets busy, you're going to be load-balanced to some other exchange and bop around till you finally get home. Try pinging some sites at different times, you get different numbers of hops, meaning packet shaping is not going to affect overall download times, lots of other things are going to impact overall performance.
  15. Donn Hilton from Victoria, Canada writes: The internet is not yet designed to carry the bandwidth required to carry some of the material some are attempting. It's an annoyance to see people downloading illegally digitized movies. I want to get emails across and often find that they are moving at a snails pace simply because there are people out there who are greedy and willing to gobble band width. The way around this is to nail those people to the wall or else force providers to increase carrying capacity. That would probably be via some government incentives. Government is never usually very good at that. They tend to be biased as to who they support. There's lots of fibre cable out there with dark fibres waiting to be lit up. It's a matter of money putting newer, faster equipments on the ends. Don't blame the Bell's and their ilk for wanting to throttle bandwidth at certain times of the day for certain un-named users. They don't have much choice. I want my email and I don't give a crap about the idiots that think they should be free to use up all the band width available to the rest of us. Idiots!
  16. L P from Toronto, Canada writes: "Internet providers should simply be providing a pipe for data, they argue, and staying out of decisions about whose data is more important or valuable." this perhaps is the important statement here, bandwidth throttling and censorship should not be a mandate of providers but left to entities outside of internet companies such as the law should regulate content; and throttling simply does not provide true service to the consumer but a cash grab for the internet companies... next you have companies limiting access to competitor's sites or content... where is the end of it all? for a comparative example of this issue; perhaps a crude analogy but effective none-the-less: - would we hold the province liable for a crime due to it constructing a road which was used to transport illegal content - would we hold the truck manufacturer liable for a crime due to it constructing a vehicle which was used to transport illegal content - would we hold the trucking company liable for a crime due to it owning a vehicle which was used to transport illegal content when the crime was committed by the driver exclusively. the driver is the responsible party and should be dealt the consequences this begs the issue then where blame lies and what regulation tries to mandate through micro-managing possibilities and where would this all end. so, if a user breaks the law when using their computer to commit the crime then it is that user's ownership of those actions and not the manufacturer of the computer, not the provider of the internet, the utility company providing power to run the computer to connect to the internet... honestly, the whole issue can become quite ludicrous if you let it. provide me with the access to all content at unhindered rates and I will be responsible for my actions while connected. this should be the ethic and approach internet agencies, the law and all should take “net neutrality” perhaps an idealism but it is better then corporate based censorship
  17. Norman Caissie from Ottawa, Canada writes: @Donn Hilton. If your emails are slow then the problem is between the chair and the keybaord.

    The email system is not bogged down by other network traffic. Duh, the SPAM bogs it down.

    Go take a computer course and then comment.
  18. Gnarly Kanuck from Canada writes: I wonder how much Government money has been given to build out the the Internet in Canada.

    If it is anything like the US, the backbone has been build with public money(Construction grants and tax breaks) only now to have private companies at the last mile, profit from this packet shaping scam.

    The beauty of this scam is that it is highly technical thus easier to con people in believing they will benefit by paying extra and many legislators fail to understand the significance of the public benefit derived from free and open communications rather and the costs associated with premium priced packets of data.
  19. Larry Coulter from Canada writes: As it pertains in Canada; perhaps the biggest issue is the government hiding from the fray using the guise of deregulation. Shame, shame. Just another reason the Conservatives are losing ground with the electorate.
  20. Gardiner Westbound from Canada writes:
    Ever wonder why incessant harpies on The Shopping Channel have a prime basic tier location? Rogers owns it! The government maintains and protects the cable robber barons' geographic monopolies. The Internet will provide minimum value and maximum profit until the government protects consumers.
  21. C Bruner from Toronto, Canada writes: I have no problem with allowing traffic shaping. Go ahead and traffic shape all you want, Bell & Rogers. JUST DON'T DO IT ON THE LAST MILE!

    If they can't traffic shape the last mile, I can use multiple providers, and you can bet it won't be either Bell or Rogers. In fact I went to Tek Savvy this week for this very issue.

    Maybe its time that the cable and phone lines to homes, paid for by years of monopoly were turned back to the home owners in exchange for the payment of a monthly maintenance fee to a government agency who can decide who will get to maintain these lines for us. I've had more than enough of both Bell and Rogers.
  22. Eric the Red from Uzbekistan writes: Who is this corporate turd?
  23. The Wight from Canada writes: In the US, some municipalities are tabling the notion of co-operatives, so that the last mile (usually fibre in the scenarios) is owned by the end consumers as a group rather than any one ISP who could conceivably hold them hostage.

    Once the last mile has an alternative that is public owned via that co-operative, then the network can be tied off to any Tier 1 ISP who has nearby access to the backbones. You could even create a public-owned ISP to compete with the privates or lease the right to operate it to the highest bidder.

    I've read the text of some of the proposals online and they sound very interesting. An online meter showing your usage, prices quoted in dollars/GB of data transfer (like gasoline prices), etc.

Join the Conversation, Leave a Comment

This conversation is semi-moderated What is moderation? | How do I report a comment?

You must be logged-in to submit a comment — login now!

Not registered with globeandmail.com? Register now. It is quick and free.

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to Ingram 2.0

Back to top