OPEN INTERNET CODE OF PRACTICE:

Transcription

1 OPEN INTERNET CODE OF PRACTICE: VOLUNTARY CODE OF PRACTICE SUPPORTING ACCESS TO LEGAL SERVICES AND SAFEGUARDING AGAINST NEGATIVE DISCRIMINATION ON THE OPEN INTERNET Intrductin This vluntary cde f practice puts frward a set f cmmitments agreed by signatries in supprt f the pen internet. They were develped by signatries fllwing discussins with gvernment, the regulatr, industry and brader stakehlders and building n Cmmunicatins Minister Ed Vaizey MP s statement in 2011 that the cncept f an pen internet shuld be guided by three principles: users shuld be able t access all legal cntent there shuld be n discriminatin against cntent prviders n the basis f cmmercial rivalry; and traffic management plicies shuld be clear and transparent. This vluntary cde f practice shuld be read in cnjunctin with the existing vluntary cde f practice n traffic management transparency 1 and the Nvember 2011 Ofcm statement n its apprach t net neutrality 2. Backgrund The way we use the internet is changing. The internet is increasingly being used by cnsumers as a means t access vide based services and the uptake f these relatively high bandwidth services is in turn driving the rapid grwth in verall traffic levels. Meanwhile significant investments are being made in new fixed and mbile high speed access netwrks which will, in turn, cntinue t drive traffic vlumes acrss the internet. The ptential t prvide managed services that wuld enable a specific piece f cntent, service r applicatin t be delivered withut risk f degradatin frm netwrk cngestin is ne ptin pen fr cnsideratin by Internet Service Prviders (ISPs). Such services are still at a very early stage and it is difficult t predict hw widely they will be ffered r used. These services culd prvide real cnsumer benefit in terms f imprved experience hwever the emergence f managed services des raise questins abut what their impact will be n best effrts internet access and whether their emergence culd lead t additinal unintended utcmes that wuld be less welcme. Cncern abut these issues has led t increased fcus n the traffic management plicies emplyed by ISPs t help meet and manage demand n their netwrks. Traffic management is nt a new phenmenn but refers t a range f practices that have lng been emplyed by ISPs t make efficient use f their netwrks and help prvide a gd experience fr custmers. In this cntext, several issues have been raised, including: the imprtance f prviding clear infrmatin t cnsumers abut traffic management practices that culd be relevant t the service chices they make Page 1 f 11

2 the cntinued ability f cnsumers t be able t access legal cntent, applicatins and services f their chice thrugh prducts ffered by ISPs the risk that any negative discriminatin undertaken by ISPs culd have harmful impacts n prviders f cntent, applicatins and services available ver the internet the ptential verall impact f a new managed services market n best effrts internet access and the ability f the internet t remain as an pen platfrm fr innvatin In Nvember 2011 Ofcm published a dcument setting ut its views n these issues. In this dcument Ofcm recgnised the psitive rle that traffic management can play in the internet s success, increasing the efficiency with which peratrs manage netwrk capacity. It als acknwledged that traffic management culd be used t supprt new innvative managed services that will be f benefit t cnsumers, such as high quality IPTV services, priritised ver ther traffic. Ofcm hwever als recgnised that certain uses f traffic management culd ptentially lead t sme undesirable utcmes. Fr example, the use f traffic management t target and degrade specific and alternative services and t prevent cnsumers frm being able t access the legal services, cntent and applicatins f their chice ver the internet. Ofcm further highlighted the imprtance f best effrts access t the internet in supprting innvatin and wuld be cncerned if ISPs were t priritise managed services in a manner that left insufficient capacity fr best-effrts access t the pen internet. Ofcm nevertheless argued that its apprach wuld be t seek fr the benefits f bth best effrts access and managed services t c-exist. Hwever it acknwledged that ensuring the n-ging ability f best effrts access t supprt innvatin wuld need t be kept under review as managed services may evlve in the market. Thrughut Ofcm s discussin, the imprtance f being transparent abut the nature and elements f an ISP s traffic management plicy and the level f cmpetitin in the market were als underlined as essential t supprting psitive utcmes. Ofcm did nt recmmend the need fr any regulatry interventin t ensure any specific utcmes in Nvember Indeed the next steps Ofcm utlined all invlve cntinual mnitring f activity in the market t ensure any issues that need t be addressed are identified. Ofcm cmmitted t mnitring: prgress in delivering transparent infrmatin t cnsumers abut traffic management practices, keeping under review the pssibility f intervening mre frmally the nging quality f best effrts internet access and keeping the pssibility f intrducing a minimum quality f service under review the prevalence and nature f prducts which blck services in rder t determine whether this wuld prmpt any further interventin Signatries t this vluntary cde f practice believe that the apprach set ut by Ofcm is bradly crrect. The evlutin f the managed services market is at a very early stage and the cllective impact f ptential innvatin is impssible t predict and evaluate. Mving at this stage t define specific rules surrunding the evlutin f unknwn services wuld be premature and wuld be likely t chill innvatin in services that culd deliver significant cnsumer benefits; restrict cnsumer chice; inhibit efficiency; and pssibly distrt the cmmercial psitin between ISPs and cntent, service and applicatin prviders. Nevertheless sme practive steps can be taken at this stage t help ensure that innvatin Page 2 f 11

3 leads t psitive market utcmes and the psitive cexistence f managed services with best effrts internet access. Ensuring rbust cmpetitin and prviding effective transparent infrmatin abut traffic management practices t users are viewed by signatries f this cde as the key elements f an effective apprach t these issues. Hwever the signatries als believe it is imprtant t set ut at this stage their cmmitments with regard t ensuring access t legal services and safeguarding against negative discriminatin twards the cntent r applicatin(s) f specific prviders. Page 3 f 11

4 The Cde f Practice Signatries t this cde agree t make the fllwing cmmitments regarding access t legal services, safeguarding against negative discriminatin and supprting traffic management transparency. These are rted in practical cmmitments that individual ISPs are able t make. These cmmitments shuld be read in accrdance with the fllwing explanatry sectin regarding their applicatin in practice. 1. Signatries t this cde supprt the cncept f the pen internet and the general principle that legal cntent, applicatins and services, r categries theref shuld nt be blcked. Whilst prducts that ffer full internet access will be the nrm, in rder t supprt prduct differentiatin and cnsumer chice, ISPs retain the ability t ffer alternative types f prducts. In instances where certain classes f legal cntent, applicatins and/r services are unavailable n a prduct signatries t this cde will: i. Nt use the term internet access t describe r market such prducts; and ii. Ensure that any restrictins are effectively cmmunicated t cnsumers, building n the cmmitments made in the transparency cde f practice. 2. Signatries t this cde realise the psitive impact sme frms f discriminatin culd have in supprting innvatin and chice and retain the right t develp and ffer managed services. In recgnising hwever that sme frms f discriminatin may be harmful, signatries undertake that traffic management will nt be deplyed in a manner that targets and degrades the cntent r applicatin(s) f specific prviders. Signatries als recgnise the imprtance f best effrts internet access being a viable chice fr cnsumers alngside any managed services that might be develped and ffered. 3. Signatries supprt the prvisin f clear and transparent traffic management plicies as utlined in the vluntary cde f practice fr traffic management transparency. Page 4 f 11

5 What these cmmitments mean in practice Cmmitment 1 means that all signatries t this cde will ensure that prducts that supprt full internet access, i.e. services that permit a cnsumer t access any cntent, applicatins and/r service(s) that are lawfully available n the internet are the nrm within their prtfli f prducts. In rder t supprt prduct differentiatin and cnsumer chice, ISPs retain the ability t ffer alternative prducts. Hwever, in instances where a prduct des nt supprt full internet access, i.e. where certain classes f cntent, applicatins and/r services are blcked, the term internet access will nt be used t describe r market such prducts. ISPs als cmmit t effectively cmmunicating any restrictins n such prducts. In setting ut Cmmitment 2, ISPs retain the ability t deply reasnable traffic management practices ver their netwrks. Such practices might include: managing cngestin n its netwrk blcking services it is required t d s by law r a curt rder blcking sites and services included n the Internet Watch Fundatin list deplying age verificatin/child prtectin/parental cntrl tls fr its cnsumers deplying cntent filtering r make available cntent filtering tls where apprpriate fr public wi-fi access supprting the delivery f managed services ensuring elements f a cnsumer s cntract are bserved (e.g. data caps, dwnlad limits, heavy user plicy) safeguarding the security and integrity f its netwrk Cmmitment 2 aims t prevent negative discriminatin whereby an ISP targets and degrades the cntent r applicatin f a specific prvider(s). Cmmitment 2 was develped t address this ptential type f negative behaviur espused by the Minister when he articulated the principle f n discriminatin against cntent prviders n the basis f cmmercial rivalry. As set ut in Cmmitment 3 and the vluntary cde f practice n traffic management transparency, ISPs remain cmmitted t supprting the prvisin f clear and transparent infrmatin abut their traffic management practices. Hw the cmmitments will be mnitred Signatries believe that this set f vluntary cmmitments cmplement the apprach set ut by Ofcm and the nging wrk and next steps it set ut in Nvember Ofcm has stated that ne f its nging pieces f wrk will be t mnitr the prevalence and nature f prducts which blck certain classes f legal cntent, applicatins and/r services. This prcess will prvide a mechanism t benchmark signatries cmpliance with the prvisin set ut in Cmmitment 1 that prducts ffering full internet access will be the nrm, cupled by the ability t ffer alternative prducts that may nt supprt access t all frms f cntent, services and applicatins. Ofcm s intentin t mnitr the prvisin f transparent traffic management infrmatin and t investigate the nature f traffic management practices as part f its cmmunicatins infrastructure reprt will play a useful rle in benchmarking signatries success in Page 5 f 11

6 cmmunicating the nature f its traffic management plicies t cnsumers as per vluntary Cmmitments 1 and 3. Cmmitment 2 cvers ptential individual cases f negative and targeted discriminatin and accrdingly signatries t this cde recgnise that it wuld be helpful fr a prcess t be put in place that wuld enable ptential cncerns abut pssible instances f negative discriminatin t be raised with relevant parties. This prcess is set ut in Annex 1. Ofcm s stated intent t mnitr the n-ging ability f best effrts internet access t supprt innvatin and t keep this under review as managed services may evlve in the market is als an imprtant cmpnent f the wider cntext in which these cmmitments are being made. Signatries recgnise the imprtance f best effrts internet access being a viable chice fr cnsumers alngside any innvatin that may ccur in the managed services market. The signatries t this cde therefre believe that it is right that Ofcm take wnership f this issue and als believe that the new prpsed prcess will be a useful input t Ofcm as it cntinues its wrk in mnitring the nature and impact f traffic management practices in the market and the effective c-existence f managed services and best effrts internet access. It is clear that the vluntary cmmitments being made in this cde clsely relate t nging mnitring wrk Ofcm has said that it will cnduct. Signatries t this cde are happy t discuss with Ofcm hw its future wrk plans regarding pen internet issues culd supprt r input int a review f these vluntary cmmitments. Page 6 f 11

7 SIGNATORIES: BE BT BSkyB EE giffgaff KCOM O2 Plusnet TalkTalk Tesc Mbile Three Vdafne Virgin July 2012 (agreed and launched) May 2013 (minr amendments and clarificatins) Nvember 2014 (additinal signatries) Page 7 f 11

8 Glssary Full internet access: as articulated in Ofcm s dcument, such a service permits a cnsumer t access any service lawfully available n the internet. Prviding such a service des nt impinge n an ISP s ability t deply reasnable traffic management practices ver their netwrks. Such practices might include: managing cngestin n its netwrk blcking services it is required t d s by law r a curt rder blcking sites and services included n the Internet Watch Fundatin list deplying age verificatin/child prtectin/parental cntrl tls fr its cnsumers deplying cntent filtering r make available cntent filtering tls where apprpriate fr public wi-fi access supprting the delivery f managed services ensuring elements f a cnsumer s cntract are bserved (e.g. data caps, dwnlad limits, heavy user plicy) safeguarding the security and integrity f its netwrk Legal services: this definitin excludes any service, cntent, applicatin r prtcl that an ISP is required t blck by UK law r a curt rder and child abuse images as infrmed by the list prvided by the Internet Watch Fundatin. Blcked/blcking: this definitin relates t prducts where certain services are always unavailable as a cnsequence f an ISP s plicy t blck access t r cntractually restrict access t a certain set f services n a particular prduct. Managed services: as articulated in Ofcm s dcument, such services are delivered when ISPs priritise certain traffic accrding t the value they ascribe t it. Managed services can invlve an ISP ffering a quality f service that can guarantee a certain level f perfrmance, s that the cntent, service r applicatin can be delivered withut risk f degradatin frm netwrk cngestin. Such a quality f service arrangement can be made between an ISP and a cntent, applicatin r service prvider r directly between an ISP and a cnsumer. An example culd be the priritisatin f an IPTV service. Best-effrts internet access: as articulated in Ofcm s dcument, best effrts perates n the principle by which ISPs attempt t cnvey all traffic n mre r less equal terms. The results in an pen internet with n specific services being hindered r blcked, althugh sme may need t be managed during times f cngestin. Page 8 f 11

9 Annex 1 Vluntary prcess fr raising cncerns abut pssible cases f negative discriminatin ver the pen internet (in respect f cmmitment 2 f the cde) The purpse f this new prcess is t: prvide a useful mechanism fr varius industry players t cnstructively engage n specific issues and cncerns shuld they emerge; prvide a useful evidence base n actual market develpments that will help infrm Ofcm s evaluatin f the nature and impact f traffic management practices and the cexistence f managed services alngside best effrts internet access services; build n the useful crss-industry discussins that have infrmed the develpment f this cde t supprt useful and prductive future dialgue n pen internet issues. The fllwing sets ut the details f the prcess and hw t engage with it shuld yu have an issue within its scpe that yu wuld like t raise: Wh and what falls in scpe f the prcess? This prcess deals with alleged issues f negative discriminatin, defined as an instance whereby an ISP targets and degrades the cntent r applicatin f a specific prvider(s). This prcess is designed t supprt cmmunicatin between ISPs and prviders f internetbased cntent, applicatins r services with the verall aim t supprt the reslutin f legitimate issues f cncern in an efficient manner n a bilateral basis. This prcess des nt apply t mre general issues abut a signatry s traffic management plicy, the price r cnditins f a bradband prduct r hw details f traffic management plicies are cmmunicated t cnsumers and service prviders. If yu are interested in traffic management transparency please refer t the vluntary cde n this issue: Please nte that this prcess is nt fr cnsumer cmplaints. If yu are a cnsumer and wish t raise an issue in respect f traffic management, please cntact yur ISP in the first instance cntacting its custmer services team and fllwing its published cmplaints prcedure. Hw des the prcess wrk 1. Raising an issue with the ISP If yu are a prvider f internet-based cntent, applicatins r services and believe that a signatry ISP t the pen internet cde f practice has targeted and degraded yur cntent, applicatin r service yu shuld raise this with the named cntact belw. In ding s it is recmmended that as much evidence and supprting infrmatin are prvided as pssible. It shuld be stressed that the signatries cmmit t this vluntary prcess in gd faith and wuld expect any third party raising cncerns t act accrdingly by ensuring that any cncerns raised are prperly evidenced and supprted. Signatries t this cde therefre reserve the right t dismiss and/r reject a cmplaint if it is nt prperly Page 9 f 11

10 evidenced r if it des nt fall within the scpe f this prcess and cmmitment 2 f the cde. The prvider f internet-based cntent, applicatins r services may als wish t lk at the signatry ISP s verall traffic management plicy t ensure that the issue is nt in relatin t general and disclsed traffic management plicy. A list f hyperlinks t traffic management Key Facts Indicatr tables prvided by signatry ISPs is prvided at: Named cntacts frm signatry ISPs: BE: Ben.Shaw@bskyb.cm BT: mike.cunningham@bt.cm BSkyB: Ben.Shaw@bskyb.cm EE: Anne.hitink@ee.c.uk giffgaff: Rbin.Vernn@2.cm KCOM: Christine Rberts regulatry@kcm.cm O2: Rbin.Vernn@2.cm Plusnet: Kelly Drset - kdrset@plus.net TalkTalk: Andrew.Heaney@talktalkplc.cm Tesc Mbile: jhn.prestn@tescmbile.cm Three: trafficmanagement@three.c.uk Vdafne: justin.hrnby@vdafne.cm Virgin: Andrew.Wileman@virginmedia.c.uk 2. Lgging an issue with the BSG Shuld the issue nt be reslved as a result f this bilateral cntact the prvider f internetbased cntent, applicatins r services can lg this with the BSG by ing: peninternet@bradbanduk.rg Please nte that the BSG will nly accept issues within scpe f the prcess and which have been directly cmmunicated t the ISP in questin. The BSG will nt make a judgment f the validity f the claim but will share the lg f raised issues with gvernment and Ofcm at regular intervals t help build the evidence base f Page 10 f 11

11 issues f cncern and assist gvernment and Ofcm with any further analysis, actin r investigatin they may wish t pursue. 3. Update and review f prcess The BSG and signatry ISPs will keep this prcess under review in cnsultatin with ther stakehlders. Publically available updates n this issue will appear n the BSG website as they are published. Page 11 f 11