The new guidelines follow last year’s agreement to introduce a new Net Neutrality law, although this time around the language appears to be somewhat stricter. Never the less there are still some caveats, such as to allow Internet security services (anti-spam/virus filtering etc.), support websites blocked via court orders and for general traffic management measures (when needed to tackle network congestion).

The Broadband Stakeholders Group, which manages the related Open Internet and Traffic Management Codes of Practice for UK providers, recently completed a review of its code and opted not to make any major changes. In fairness their voluntary code was already fairly similar to what Europe has proposed to implement.

One potential conflict area could be with the UK Government’s drive to force network-level filtering (Parental Control) services on to Internet providers. So far most ISPs get around any Net Neutrality concerns on this front by offering adult content blocking as an optional service during sign-up, but not all of them take the same approach.

Sky Broadband recently announced its intention to adopt a default-on approach to Internet filtering that would conflict with the new EU stance and the Government are even considering a law change in order to support this (here). Otherwise here’s a summary of the Council’s recommendation for a new net neutrality framework.

EU Net Neutrality Guidelines (Framework Recommendation)

1. General principles

1.1. Internet users have the right to freedom of expression, including the right to receive and impart information, by using services, applications and devices of their choice, in full compliance with Article 10 of the Convention. These rights must be enjoyed without discrimination on any ground such as gender, sexual orientation, race, colour, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, association with a national minority, property, birth or other status.

1.2. Internet users’ right to receive and impart information should not be restricted by means of blocking, slowing down, degrading or discriminating Internet traffic associated with particular content, services, applications or devices, or traffic associated with services provided on the basis of exclusive arrangements or tariffs.

1.3. Internet users should be entitled to an Internet connection with the characteristics defined in the contractual agreements that they have concluded with Internet access service providers on the basis of specific and adequate information that is provided to users with regard to all aspects which might affect their access to the Internet and their right to receive and impart information.

2. Equal treatment of Internet traffic

2.1. Internet traffic should be treated equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference irrespective of the sender, receiver, content, application, service or device. This is understood as the network neutrality principle for the purpose of this recommendation. The network neutrality principle applies to all Internet access services irrespective of the infrastructure or the network used for the Internet connection and regardless of the underlying technology used to transmit signals.

2.2. This does not preclude Internet traffic management measures which are necessary and proportionate to:

– give effect to a court order or an order of a regulatory authority;

– preserve the integrity and security of the network, services provided via the network and end-users’ terminal equipment;

– prevent network congestion and optimise traffic management when congestion occurs.

2.3. Internet traffic management measures should be non-discriminatory, transparent and maintained no longer than strictly necessary. Traffic management policies should be subject to periodic review by competent authorities within each member State.

3. Pluralism and diversity of information

3.1. Internet service providers should not discriminate against traffic from other providers of content, applications and services which compete with their own products. This requires that traffic management decisions be strictly dissociated from content-related decision-making processes of the operator in the spirit of the 2007 Committee of Ministers’ Declaration on protecting the role of the media in democracy in the context of media concentration.

3.2. As an exemption to the network neutrality principle, preferential treatment of traffic on the basis of arrangements between Internet service providers and providers of content, applications and services should be allowed only if sufficient safeguards for users’ ability to access, use and impart information are in place. In particular, preferential treatment of traffic should not diminish or affect the affordability, performance or quality of users’ access to the Internet. Internet users should have a real opportunity to choose an Internet connection without preferential treatment of traffic. They must also be informed about the impact that such treatment might have on their ability to access, use and impart information, diverse and pluralistic content that is publicly available, applications and services of their choice.

3.3. If the physical Internet connection is shared between Internet traffic and other services, States may consider imposing reasonable, transparent and proportionate obligations on Internet service providers to carry content which meets general interest objectives.

4. Privacy

4.1. Internet traffic management measures should involve processing of personal data only to the extent that is necessary and proportionate to achieve the purposes set out in the second section of these guidelines. Such measures should be in accordance with Article 8, paragraph 2, of the Convention for the Protection of Individuals with regard to Automatic Processing of Personal Data (ETS No. 108) and applicable legislation on the right to private life and personal data protection.

4.2. The use of Internet traffic management techniques that are capable of assessing the content of communications is an interference with the right to respect for private and family life. Therefore, such use must be fully in line with Article 8 of the Convention, be tested against applicable legislation on the right to private life and personal data protection and reviewed by a competent authority within each member State in order to assess compliance with legislation.

5. Transparency

5.1. Internet service providers should provide users with clear, complete and publicly available information with regard to any traffic management practices which might affect users’ access to and distribution of content, applications or services. Internet users should be able to obtain information from Internet service providers about Internet traffic management and Internet speeds.

5.2. Competent authorities within each member State should monitor and report on Internet traffic management practices. Reports should be prepared in an open and transparent manner, and made available to the public free of charge.

6. Accountability

6.1. Internet service providers should put in place appropriate, clear, open and efficient procedures to respond within reasonable time limits to complaints from Internet users alleging breaches of the principles included in the foregoing provisions. Internet users should have the possibility to refer the matter directly to competent authorities within each member State and be entitled to timely redress.

6.2. States should ensure in their policy frameworks the accountability of Internet service providers with regard to respect for the principle of network neutrality. Accountability also requires that appropriate mechanisms are in place to respond to network neutrality complaints.

The post Council of Europe Sets Out Net Neutrality Guidelines for Broadband ISPs appeared first on United Networks.

So far Gigaclear’s network has already become available to roughly 15,000 homes and businesses in rural parts of Oxfordshire, Essex, Kent, Northamptonshire, Cambridgeshire, Leicestershire, Berkshire, Hertfordshire, Rutland and Gloucestershire in England.

On top of that the ISP, which currently owns and operates 56 rural fibre networks (plus 35 under construction), has also signed a number of Government (state aid) supported Broadband Delivery UKcontracts (e.g. Gloucestershire – here, Essex – here and Berkshire – here etc.) and they hope to reach approximately 40,000 premises by the end of 2016.

However beyond that they also have commercial plans to reach another 30-40K premises (around 80,000 total), which is likely to require further investment. Gigaclear has already managed to attract£48.6 million in investment and now they’re about to get another €25m (£19m) via a loan.

The FT states that most of this loan will be coming from the European Investment Bank (EIB) and indeed it’s said to be the EIB’s “first targeted support for rural communications in the UK“, as well as also being the maximum available under their InnovFin (EU finance for innovators) mid-cap growth finance scheme.

Matthew Hare, CEO of Gigaclear, said:

“We’re transforming lives and businesses, giving people access to the fastest internet speeds to be found anywhere in the world and technologically future-proofing these rural communities for years.”

One problem with the big spender approach to infrastructure development is that it will still take a long time to recoup the investment, not that this appears to worry Gigaclear or any of the other fibre optic ISPs.

Investors often seem able to see the long-term potential of fibre optic connectivity, which has also attracted them to other operators like Cityfibre and Hyperoptic. Assuming Ofcom doesn’t negatively upset that market too much with their Strategic Review then there’s no reason why this shouldn’t continue.

At this point it’s worth reminding our readers of Gigaclear’s “medium-term” target from their 2014 AIM float: “The Company’s target, assuming capital of £180 million (including the proceeds of the Placing) is deployed over the medium-term, is to make ultrafast fibre broadband available to 200,000 rural properties.”

The post Rural Broadband ISP Gigaclear Gets 25m Euro Loan to Expand Network appeared first on United Networks.

The new beta checker, which until fairly recently was not officially available to the public (it’s been in testing for the past few months), provides users with a simplified and more logical overview to show the status of your local street cabinet based “fibre broadband” availability.

The first status option at the top left (‘We are exploring solutions‘) is really just another way of saying that there are currently no concrete plans to upgrade your local street cabinet with FTTC, while all of the indicators beyond that one may point to some degree of progress towards full activation.

Essentially the more status indicators that have been lit up in blue the better, progressing as they do towards the far right side and the ultimate goal of ‘Accepting Orders‘ (i.e. you can now get the superfast “fibre” service via FTTC etc.).

The beta checker also reports your local street cabinet number, which may come in handy if you need to query its status. It’s a nice improvement, but there’s still scope for adding a bit more information (e.g. estimated line speeds, without needing to use the separate BTWholsale or ISP specific checker).

The post BT Openreach Adds More Cabinet Data to “Fibre Broadband” Checker appeared first on United Networks.

The company formation agent produced the table by marking each UK city on eight criteria: commercial property (rent costs, availability etc.), energy, virtual office services, public transport, broadband service (average download speed), workforce demographics, access to finance (e.g. available grants) and quality of life (e.g. home rental prices, crime, affordable childcare).

Apparently subcategories, such as broadband download speeds and the current availability of prime office space, were all scored out of ten in order to help create an all-encompassing national league table. The broadband speed data was sourced from Cable.co.uk, although crucially speedtests are not a reliable reflection of the underlying availability of even faster connections (we’ve highlighted availability on some of the below examples).

Otherwise it’s important to point out that sometimes cities with a thriving business focused local economy aren’t actually the best for starting a new company. For example, Aberdeen (Scotland) was ranked a lowly 66th despite being the UK’s oil capital and having numerous industrial successes, but this also means that the cost of starting and maintaining a company in the city “has become simply untenable for many small business owners.”

The Best Cities

Overall Derby (Derbyshire, England) topped the table because it is “by far the most affordable, accessible and supportive city in the UK to launch a new startup” and it’s especially strong in the tech sector (12% of its workforce are employed in hi-tech industry, which is double most other cities).

Virtual office services were also found to be extremely cheap in Derby (£55 per month) and typical broadband download speeds tended to hover around 24Mbps (Megabits per second). In fairness the general availability of superfast broadband networks in Derby are also nearly universal.

Elsewhere the best city in Scotland was found to be Stirling (ranked 8th overall), although it only delivered typical download speeds of around 14Mbps and we note that the local availability of superfast broadband is only just pushing above the 70% mark (clearly broadband wasn’t a prime factor here).

However spare a thought for poor Wales and its “top” city of Newport, which ranks 28th overall and thus sits roughly middle. The city did reasonably well thanks to its affordable commercial property and typical average download speeds of around 20Mbps, but it still sits mid-table due to problems in other categories. We also note that local superfast broadband availability tends to sit at around the 90%+ mark.

The Worst City

Obviously somebody has to come last in this table and that gong goes to Hereford in England, which was due to its “complete lack of business infrastructure“, lack of office space, expensive virtual office prices, limit access to grants for start-ups and the fact that broadband speeds in the city are also slow at 9Mbps. The availability of superfast connections also tends to sit at around the low 70% mark. Other small UK cathedral cities also struggled for a good ranking.

The Top UK Cities for Starting a Company
Derby 1
Stoke-on-Trent 2
Belfast 3
Wolverhampton 4
Sunderland 5
Lincoln 6
Coventry 7
Stirling 8
Liverpool 9
Durham 10
Armagh 11
St Albans 12
Lichfield 13
Wakefield 14
Newcastle-upon-Tyne 15
Glasgow 16
Bradford 17
Sheffield 18
Preston 19
Salford 20
Manchester 21
Winchester 22
Nottingham 23
London 24
Leeds 25
Worcester 26
Southampton 27
Newport 28
Londonderry 29
Edinburgh 30
Cambridge 31
Lisburn 32
Westminster 33
Norwich 34
Gloucester 35
Birmingham 36
Bristol 34
Lancaster 38
Peterborough 39
Cardiff 40
Leicester 41
Chester 42
Salisbury 43
Kingston-upon-Hull 44
Swansea 45
Exeter 46
Oxford 47
Ely 48
Perth 49
Chelmsford 50
York 51
St David’s 52
Dundee 53
Truro 54
Plymouth 55
Brighton & Hove 56
Bangor 57
Bath 58
Portsmouth 59
Chichester 60
Newry 61
St Asaph 62
Canterbury 63
Ripon 64
Carlisle 65
Aberdeen 66
Inverness 67
Wells 68
Hereford 69

The post Good Broadband Helps Find the Top 69 UK Cities for Starting a Business appeared first on United Networks.

BTOpenreach’s own local phone and broadband infrastructure was badly hit when the River Ouse, which enters the city from the west before meandering down to the south, broke its banks last week and left many premises underwater. BT’s York telephone Exchange also suffered a serious power failure, although this was resolved a day or so later.

By comparison Cityfibre told ISPreview.co.uk of their delight in being able to report that “all council and customer services running over our metro network in York have remained fully operational, continuing to serve the city despite the terrible flooding in recent weeks.” Similarly the new FTTH network in the city saw no reported outages or from trial customers.

John Franklin, Cityfibre’s Engineering Director, told ISPreview.co.uk:

“All our pure fibre networks are designed and built to ensure that they are at minimal risk of failure due to flooding. By ensuring no active components are located outside the customer premises and our exchanges, the remaining fibre components are unaffected by water ingress and continue to provide critical services when submerged in flood waters.

As we continue to roll-out the UK’s alternative national infrastructure, our networks are not only delivering a new generation of internet speeds but also demonstrate their increased resilience when compared with traditional copper networks.”

Admittedly Cityfibre’s network in the city is not yet to the same scale as BT’s local infrastructure; although it’s a good start to see that they didn’t have any problems. Now if they could just get Phase 1 complete and confirm when the rest of the city will be reached.

The post No Flood Delays as Cityfibre Resumes York UK FTTH Broadband Rollout appeared first on United Networks.

The tweaks will impact Internet and phone providers that buy their services directly from Openreach, which predominantly reflects the charge controls / regulation (Fixed Access Market Review) introduced by Ofcom. The prices are +vat based and don’t include any extras costs or services that ISPs may need to add on top before being sold as part of a consumer product.

Broadly speaking most of the tweaks reflect small to modest sized reductions. For example, BT’s WLR Basic Line Rental service will go from costing £89.50 per annum to £86.72 (-3.1%), although the cost of a fully unbundled (MPF) line will remain largely unchanged at £87.65 per annum. A full list of the changes can be found online, although it will only make sense to those familiar with the jargon.

The post BT Openreach Confirm UK LLU and Line Rental Price Changes for 2016 appeared first on United Networks.