April 13, 2008

How to lose my custom: “Virgin Media CEO Neil Berkett has attacked the principle of net neutrality, whereby internet service providers do not interfere with or degrade the speed at which content is delivered from websites to consumers, branding it as ‘bollocks’.”

Right, when I next move I won’t be sticking with Virgin then. I’ll find a company that actually understands why the internet is what it is. Moron. via Cennydd

Later: A couple of reason why having a two-speed internet where “content providers” can pay to be in the fast lane is a really bad idea.

1) It stifles innovation. We can expect Google to ensure YouTube’s service is not degraded by slower speeds but what about similar startups like Vimeo and Viddler who are developing online video in interesting ways? Things don’t stagnate online because there’s a level playing field for startups. Creating an artificial barrier between the big guys and the little guys will push us back about 20 years.

2) Virgin’s customers are “content providers”. A few years ago I would have accepted I was in the minority but these days nearly everyone I know is publishing something or other online be it photos, blogs, video or audio. Most are using the big services but not all, and they tend to spread their stuff around various places. I suspect they’re not going to be too happy when stuff they’ve put online comes down the slow pipe with no explanation. And sadly for Berkett they won’t blame the hosting site. They’ll assume Virgin is being crap. Again.

There are more but that’s a couple that were keeping me awake.

(6)

6 Comments on “Virgin Media CEO attacks net neutrality”

Feed for these comments
  1. 1 Jez
    Apr 14th, 2008 at 7:43 am

    Number one reason why it’s a silly thing to say is that it’s arse-backwards. *I* am the Virgin customer, not these “content providers”. I’m paying Virgin for a pipe not a series of (different sized) tubes. That’s what I signed up for, so that’s what I expect to get.

    Unfortunately, I don’t think moving to another provider is really an alternative. The ADSL providers can’t close to cable in terms of speed, plus they need to spend money on a BT phone line for the priviledge. BT’s own offering, for example, costs the same as Virgin, requires a phone, and is capped at 5Gb a month.

    I might be unhappy with Virgin, but I’m not *so* unhappy I’ll move to something worse.

  2. 2 Jez
    Apr 14th, 2008 at 7:45 am

    “… can’t get close … they need you to spend …”

    Oh, for the ability to proof my own words before pressing Submti.

  3. 3 Dave C
    Apr 14th, 2008 at 7:55 am

    2) Virgin’s customers are “content providers”.

    Absolutely! ISP’s appear to be coming to the conclusion that customers are a revenue source rather than an important part of a two-way interaction with the internet.

  4. 4 Daniel Davies
    Apr 14th, 2008 at 10:23 am

    I think the way Virgin are going is pretty disgusting, which is a real shame as I’ve always quite liked Virgin (as far as corporates go, they were one of the ‘better’ ones). As a Telewest customer I believed I had the best Internet connection in the UK, but since Virgin have taken over I’m seriously considering a BT line with bethere Internet.

  5. 5 Gordon
    Apr 14th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    Yup, I’m a Virgin customer. A happy one. Then I read this.

    Meh.

  6. 6 Dave Heger
    Apr 15th, 2008 at 7:46 am

    Why is anyone really surprised at Virgin Media’s attempt to exploit any possible avenue in order to increase their profits? THAT IS WHAT THEY DO! Anyone that believes all their PR about ‘giving the customer what they want’ is living in cloud cuckoo land. Virgin Media do no give a damn about their customers – all they are interested in is PROFIT AND CONTROL.

Comments are currently closed.
ttvadvert