Another Side of Net Neutrality

[DanDaManJC]

no one here is advocating that ISPs can't enforce qos to support their networks

rather it's a fear that ISPs will become content gateways... creating a two-tiered internet. kinda like how Apple dominates the media that goes on its devices via iTunes or Xbox Live's marketplace.

this article's old, but it talks about ISPs throttling VOIP
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4552138.stm

More recently, the CEO of SBC was quoted, directly hinting at the idea of a tiered internet approach...
http://www.seochat.com/c/a/Search-Engine-News/Google-and-the-ATT-Two-Tier-Internet-Scheme/
http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/10/5498.ars

Whether or not the telecoms will be able to deliver on this is up in the air... obviously there are big players in google and amazon that are opposed to the extra fees

 

[drebo]

That is my only concern about allowing ISPs to categorize traffic.

Well, you don't need to worry about it at this point, as such would be anticompetitive.

Until the Telco Act of 1996 is rewritten, you don't need to worry about tiered networks. Tiered networks is, as I view it, a mostly empty threat by the ISPs to get the government to rewrite 1996.

There's very little money anymore in delivering internet service to consumers. ISPs don't make their money on your $35/mo. They make their money by whoring their networks out as transit networks to other network providers. And by providing CONTENT.

The major problem with the Telco Act of 1996 and what is spurring this whole "net neutrality" issue is that the Act does not make a distinction between CONTENT PROVIDER and SERVICE PROVIDER, because in 1996, there WASN'T a distinction: the owner of the copper also provided your service. As technology progressed, that became less and less the case. Now, AT&T can provide you with Internet service, but you don't need to have phone service from them. Or, Comcast can provide you with a pipe to the net and you can watch TV on Hulu or Netflix.

Tiered networks is a threat to make these CONTENT PROVIDERS pay for the ability to use the SERVICE PROVIDER networks. Because the Telco Act of 1996 ensures geographic monopolies, tiered networks are illegal at this point. However, the threat of them means that the government needs to revisit the organization of the telecommunications industry as a whole.

The proper solution is for the Telco Act of 1996 to be rewritten to formalize the distinction between CONTENT PROVIDERS and SERVICE PROVIDERS and to remove the geographic monopolies. ISPs would appreciate it, as they now don't need to expand an aging, obsolete network (copper back to the CO is totally antiquated and there are far superior and cheaper alternatives available).

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

I do know how QoS works, and I never said P2P would be blocked.

If you know how it works, then why are you so against QoS of the internet?

Who gets to make that determination? The consumer, the government, or the ISP? Correct answer: the consumer.

Incorrect.

The owners of the network you are connecting to. It's their pipe to manage how they choose.

Also, P2P traffic is less critical than any real time data app from a management/admin perspective (which is what an ISP would be doing). Please give me any example where a P2P app trumps a voice call in importance. Correct answer: there are none.

 

[DisgruntledVirus]

FWIW here is a link to the actual paper that spawned "Net Neutrality" key words, and worth a read.

http://www.freepress.net/files/timwu.pdf

 

[linkgoron]

These numbers state then that 90.5% of subscribers use 130% of the bandwidth available. Hrmmm...

No they don't.
They show that :

- 10 percent of subscribers consume 80 percent of bandwidth.
- 0.5 percent of subscribers consume about 40 percent of total bandwidth
- 80 percent of subscribers use less than 10 percent of bandwidth

the 0.5 is a part of the 10%.

I read it like this:

0.5% use 40%
9.5% use 40%
10% use more than 10%
80% use less than 10%

 

[Anubis]

It's a double edged sword when the government gets involved.

Good: They can prevent ISPs from prioritizing only certain things (ex. you get 20mbps to TV Network A's streaming site, but 2mbps to TV Network B's streaming site, because TV Network A paid your ISP for priority access) or blocking certain things.

i agree here, its what ive said all along. if you let it happen it will happen i guarantee it.

 

[spidey07]

i agree here, its what ive said all along. if you let it happen it will happen i guarantee it.

The FCC will not allow that to happen as it is anti-competitive, they have smacked down a few providers that tried such a stunt. That's why all this talk is incredibly misinformed and paranoia.

 

[zsdersw]

If you know how it works, then why are you so against QoS of the internet?

I'm not, and that's not really what NN is about.

Incorrect.

The owners of the network you are connecting to. It's their pipe to manage how they choose.

Not quite. Their "pipe" exists only through agreements with both private and public entities, so no.. they don't manage it in exclusively their own choosing. The consumer, ultimately, decides what the network is used for and votes with their wallet if the carrier doesn't meet their demands. What is truly needed, though, is more carrier/ISP choices for everyone.

Also, P2P traffic is less critical than any real time data app from a management/admin perspective (which is what an ISP would be doing). Please give me any example where a P2P app trumps a voice call in importance. Correct answer: there are none.

ISPs must listen to the demands of their customers, the consumer. Their needs and demands are paramount, not management/administration's determination of what's more or less important.

 

[spidey07]

ISPs must listen to the demands of their customers, the consumer. Their needs and demands are paramount, not management/administration's determination of what's more or less important.

We do listen to our customers. When everybody is complaining about poor performance because of a small number of subscribers using P2P we listen. A heavy P2P user complains about performance and we listen to his gripe.

Then cancel his service because he costs us too much money and uses an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of resources. The internet isn't some big dump truck for the abusers to load up.

 

[zsdersw]

We do listen to our customers. A heavy P2P user complains about performance and we listen to his gripe.

Then cancel his service because he costs us too much money and uses an overwhelmingly disproportionate amount of resources. The internet isn't some big dump truck for the abusers to load up.

Costs you too much money? How can that be? He's paying $X per month for Y Mbps; surely he's prevented from using more than he's paying for, so what's the problem?

If a customer's activity is costing more than they're paying for, it's time to adapt the network and/or the pricing structure to accomodate both the customer's activities and the costs.

 

[spidey07]

Costs you too much money? How can that be? He's paying $X per month for Y Mbps; surely he's prevented from using more than he's paying for, so what's the problem?

If a customer's activity is costing more than they're paying for, it's time to adapt the network and/or the pricing structure to accomodate both the customer's activities and the costs.

I don't think you know what the real cost of operating a network is. The 50 bucks a month you pay for UP TO 10-20 Mbs is well under what it would cost to actually provide that. That's why residential services are so cheap, they are WAY over subscribed. This argument gets so tiring because people simply don't understand how it works or the costs involved.

And regarding your "they need to adapt the network" that's exactly what QoS is and does but net neutrality won't allow that.

 

[zsdersw]

I don't think you know what the real cost of operating a network is. The 50 bucks a month you pay for UP TO 10-20 Mbs is well under what it would cost to actually provide that. That's why residential services are so cheap, they are WAY over subscribed. This argument gets so tiring because people simply don't understand how it works or the costs involved.

Yes, I do. Claims like "up to" should be changed or no longer used. If the price structure is such that every subscriber using the full amount of bandwidth they're paying for breaks the bank, that is the carrier/ISPs problem for how they present their services, not the consumer.

And regarding your "they need to adapt the network" that's exactly what QoS is and does but net neutrality won't allow that.

NN != the end of QoS.

 

[spidey07]

Yes, I do. Claims like "up to" should be changed or no longer used. If the price structure is such that every subscriber using the full amount of bandwidth they're paying for breaks the bank, that is the carrier/ISPs problem for how they present their services, not the consumer.



NN != the end of QoS.

You just showed your ignorance. NO consumer broadband network can provide every access link at full capacity. Every network is oversubscribed to some extent, it's just much more so in consumer broadband to keep the prices so incredibly low.

I can now dismiss you. You have no idea what you are talking about if you think every customer should and could be able to saturate their access layer link at the prices paid. And absolutely NN ends QoS, because the very basis of NN is to treat all packets the same = best effort delivery.

You can redeem yourself if you can site the wavelength common for longhaul SONET or the technology used to deliver IP traffic directly over SONET instead of TDM.

 

[zsdersw]

You just showed your ignorance. NO consumer broadband network can provide every access link at full capacity. Every network is oversubscribed to some extent, it's just much more so in consumer broadband to keep the prices so incredibly low.

I know they're all oversubscribed, but whose fault is that? Don't advertise "up to" a ridiculous number if you're not going to be able to provide it at that price.

I can now dismiss you.

We'll always have Paris.

And absolutely NN ends QoS, because the very basis of NN is to treat all packets the same = best effort delivery.

No. Measures have been proposed that either permit QoS without a special fee for higher-quality service or permit special fees so long as there is no exclusivity in service contracts. Either way, QoS doesn't have to go away for NN to succeed.