House rejects Net neutrality rules

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
LOL,

Do you guys not realize that you can't operate a network without having preferrential treatment?

This is nothing new. How this started getting into the news is beyond me. All I see is a bunch of people that don't understand the Internet getting up in arms over nothing. And in the meantime they are spreading totall and complete "sky is falling" BS.

You're traffic is getting preferrential treatment today people. This is nothing new. The sky is not falling and the Internet is just fine.
 

dchakrab

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
493
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
LOL,

Do you guys not realize that you can't operate a network without having preferrential treatment?

This is nothing new. How this started getting into the news is beyond me. All I see is a bunch of people that don't understand the Internet getting up in arms over nothing. And in the meantime they are spreading totall and complete "sky is falling" BS.

You're traffic is getting preferrential treatment today people. This is nothing new. The sky is not falling and the Internet is just fine.


Actually, ISPs started exercising preferential treatment only recently (read the examples I posted)...and this is alarming, because it changes the entire concept of the internet. And for your repeated "you have no idea how the internet works" crap...the people who developed and pioneered the internet have gone on record to say that this is not how the internet works. People ranging from Craig Newmark (founder of Craigs List) to Sascha Meinrath (community wireless pioneer) and Ebay have stated that this is completely against the spirit of the internet. I suppose you're more familiar with the internet than any of them?

Your tone is patronizing...but it's easy to patronize when you're insecure. Get back to us when you've done some more reading.

Dave.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
I have done plenty of reading. I'm now on a campaign to stop all this misinformation being spread around by radical groups that truly do not understand the technology or the issues they are talking about. This "save the Internet" is a perfect example of such nonsense and scare tactics.

I still say this is totally unnecessary and proponents really only have hypotetical cases (that would never come to fruition) to make it remotely worthwhile. Many executives and network designers agree with this point.

You can't stop the industry from moving forward (which is what this bill would have done). And I don't like regulation - so stay out of the Internet, government.

-edit- and many of your "cases" are Canadian. What in the world does that have to do with the issue?

I'll say it again so that it can sink in. The Internet cannot evolve into the end all means of communication without preferrential treatment and keeping the gubment out of it. If it is abused then let the FCC handle it, as has already been shown in your examples.

-edit2-
Let's take an example. A broadband company through rigorous investment in their infrastructure can now offer you IPTelephony (VoIP) with all the robust features - conference calling, muliple line appearances, business class of service and realibility. Plus super high speed Internet. Plus video and high definition video on demand and just about any type of content you could imagine. And they can do it for 100 bucks a month.

Sounds great doesn't it!

But wait. You can't have this. They aren't allowed to offer it at that price because they can't use money saving technology and innovation (which is absolutely necessary for this kind of service). Due to this regulation their cost of operations and overall bandwidth is huge and they can only offer it for 400 dollars a month.

Company loses, consumers lose, the Internet loses, no innovation, no rich services.

All because of this net neutrality BS.
 

dchakrab

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
493
0
0
Actually, no. Comcast can offer me VOIP technology already, at $50 a month. With less features than Sunrocket, which is $16 a month. However, *instead* of innovation, all Comcast has to do is kill my Sunrocket service, forcing everyone on their lines to use Comcast VOIP or none at all. Whether you like it or not. They don't even have to disclose that they are doing this. They can ask Sunrocket to *pay a fee* every time their service is accessed, driving their cost up well above the Comcast level.

This happened in N. Carolina.

Explain to me how this helps innovation in this industry.

Similarly, AOL's ability to censor all emails criticizing their company doesn't help innovation. It helps them get away with selling your inbox, by forcing companies, nonprofits, and individuals to pay to send you an email. This program met waves of criticism, but AOL tried to keep their users from ever hearing about it.

Next: Do you not see the threat of giving a telco the power to stifle the voices of political candidates who do not support their agenda?

Yes, on a technical level, this gives a telco more freedom. No, this does not justify the power we've given them, and they do *not* have a record of acting in the public interest on these issues. To believe that this will not be abused is ludicrous.

If the telcos were going to be the driving force behind innovation, then *the US* would still be #1 in broadband deployment. Instead, we're dropping fast. Japan has $40 / month 40mbs synchronous bandwidth, fiber optic. We don't. The telcos promised fiber to the home years ago, in return for massive subsidies and monopolized markets. They never delivered. We don't even have broadband coverage in rural communities yet.

On what basis are you in favor of handing them more money to foster innovation? They were free to act against network neutrality in the past, and it never resulted in more innovation. In fact, every major "good" that has come from the internet has come due to the free and open nature of the internet, the ability for a small business provider to have a great idea and suddenly become Amazon. The ability for a teenager to run a blog that lets his voice be heard. The ability for Anand to say hey, I'll build a website talking about my tech toys, and suddenly have Anandtech take off into a serious board for all things hardware. Do you realize that instead of innovating, SBC can now make money by forcing Anandtech to pay for every post I make (and, therefore, forcing Anandtech to charge every one of us), or force Anandtech out of business?

Dave.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
*sigh*

It just isn't sinking in, is it?

These "chicken little" scenarios are just scare tactics and will never come to fruition.

If they did start doing this, then customers would just go to another service. There is no provider in their right mind that would tick off it's customers that much. Not only that the FCC would lay the smack down (as they did in the North Carolina debacle)

Do any of you actually believe this stuff?

Do you honestly believe this??? Are there actually people that believe this non-sense?

"Do you realize that instead of innovating, SBC can now make money by forcing Anandtech to pay for every post I make (and, therefore, forcing Anandtech to charge every one of us), or force Anandtech out of business?
"

Hopefully this will sink in.

How can you offer enhanced services to the consumer if you can't provide preferrential treatment to certain traffic? Why would you want to stop the forward progress of modern networks?

 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
*sigh*

It just isn't sinking in, is it?

These "chicken little" scenarios are just scare tactics and will never come to fruition.
You are wrong. They already have.
 

dmcowen674

No Lifer
Oct 13, 1999
54,889
47
91
www.alienbabeltech.com
Originally posted by: spidey07
*sigh*

It just isn't sinking in, is it?

These "chicken little" scenarios are just scare tactics and will never come to fruition.

If they did start doing this, then customers would just go to another service. There is no provider in their right mind that would tick off it's customers that much. Not only that the FCC would lay the smack down (as they did in the North Carolina debacle)

Do any of you actually believe this stuff?

Do you honestly believe this??? Are there actually people that believe this non-sense?

"Do you realize that instead of innovating, SBC can now make money by forcing Anandtech to pay for every post I make (and, therefore, forcing Anandtech to charge every one of us), or force Anandtech out of business?
"

Hopefully this will sink in.

How can you offer enhanced services to the consumer if you can't provide preferrential treatment to certain traffic? Why would you want to stop the forward progress of modern networks?
Hello McFly? Anyone home???

The U.S. has fallen to 17th in Broadband deployment since 2000 and sinking faster every year.

The U.S. Corporate Whores are milking every dollar they can out of old Technology at the expense of new Technology.

Now they say in order to use the new Technology U.S. citizens will be broken into the rich and poor tiers.

The rich get spa Internet treatment while the poor, well lucky if they can get E-mail.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
And what is the entire story behind "they have"?

What was the outcome?

Come now. Don't just tell part of the story.
 

Ldir

Platinum Member
Jul 23, 2003
2,184
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
And what is the entire story behind "they have"?

What was the outcome?

Come now. Don't just tell part of the story.

Can you read? There are a dozen examples in this thread alone.
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: Ldir

Can you read? There are a dozen examples in this thread alone.

I only counted the 4 examples that the "save the intarweb" mentioned.

2 of which are canadian - Why is this even mentioned????
One of which got the smack down handed to it by the FCC
And the AOL one

Where are the other "dooms and glooms" that are being touted?

I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. Every router your packet traverses today is giving preferrential treatment to certain kinds of traffic and giving unprefferential treatment to others. Somebody hopefully will chime in and know exactly what I'm talking about and they'll get a cookie. This is done to maintain the integrity of a network - what are they going to have to say about that? Because if this didn't happen, then the Internet as a whole wouldn't work.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,450
3,888
136
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: Ldir

Can you read? There are a dozen examples in this thread alone.

I only counted the 4 examples that the "save the intarweb" mentioned.

2 of which are canadian - Why is this even mentioned????
One of which got the smack down handed to it by the FCC
And the AOL one

Where are the other "dooms and glooms" that are being touted?

I'll let you in on a dirty little secret. Every router your packet traverses today is giving preferrential treatment to certain kinds of traffic and giving unprefferential treatment to others. Somebody hopefully will chime in and know exactly what I'm talking about and they'll get a cookie. This is done to maintain the integrity of a network - what are they going to have to say about that? Because if this didn't happen, then the Internet as a whole wouldn't work.

How about the comcast and the VOIP problem?

Cox and Skype?

Do you even know how peering works?

The best layman's way to describe how net neutrality works





Much better explaination
 

dahunan

Lifer
Jan 10, 2002
18,191
3
0
I still don't understand why these scums that get elected are even allowed to keep stealing from us all the time day after day after day .. they steal from the common man every second.. with every heartbeat and then they give to the rich..


When we are dumb enough to keep voting in criminals then we get what we deserve.
 

Genx87

Lifer
Apr 8, 2002
41,091
513
126
Originally posted by: dmcowen674
Originally posted by: spidey07
*sigh*

It just isn't sinking in, is it?

These "chicken little" scenarios are just scare tactics and will never come to fruition.

If they did start doing this, then customers would just go to another service. There is no provider in their right mind that would tick off it's customers that much. Not only that the FCC would lay the smack down (as they did in the North Carolina debacle)

Do any of you actually believe this stuff?

Do you honestly believe this??? Are there actually people that believe this non-sense?

"Do you realize that instead of innovating, SBC can now make money by forcing Anandtech to pay for every post I make (and, therefore, forcing Anandtech to charge every one of us), or force Anandtech out of business?
"

Hopefully this will sink in.

How can you offer enhanced services to the consumer if you can't provide preferrential treatment to certain traffic? Why would you want to stop the forward progress of modern networks?
Hello McFly? Anyone home???

The U.S. has fallen to 17th in Broadband deployment since 2000 and sinking faster every year.

The U.S. Corporate Whores are milking every dollar they can out of old Technology at the expense of new Technology.

Now they say in order to use the new Technology U.S. citizens will be broken into the rich and poor tiers.

The rich get spa Internet treatment while the poor, well lucky if they can get E-mail.

Do you realize what you just did?
 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Originally posted by: outriding
How about the comcast and the VOIP problem?

Cox and Skype?

Do you even know how peering works?

The best layman's way to describe how net neutrality works





Much better explaination

Oh my goodness. That is some pure non-sense right there. It doesn't even begin to touch upon the issue and just seeks to scare people into "OMG! I can't surf the net!"

Let's get back to the real issue here, can we.

Can a provider give preferential treatment to certain types of traffic, aka Quality of Service?

I firmly say they can and very well should to provide the services customers want. To treat everything as best effort is to harken the dark ages of communication where a network or ISP didn't have any intelligence in their network and had to simply "throw bandwidth at the problem"

To make it even more clear to people - quality of service only exists within a providers network. That's right, their gear, their network, their service. Once you leave their administrative control any quality of service goes out the window and is now in control of whatever transit network you are on. Of course you can dictate that in your peering agreements on whether or not they'll obey your QoS markings, but for the most part you don't trust another provider's QoS. Mainly because they could just mark everything at the best class, overwhelming your resources.
 

Bowfinger

Lifer
Nov 17, 2002
15,776
392
126
Originally posted by: spidey07
Oh my goodness. That is some pure non-sense right there. It doesn't even begin to touch upon the issue and just seeks to scare people into "OMG! I can't surf the net!"

Let's get back to the real issue here, can we.

Can a provider give preferential treatment to certain types of traffic, aka Quality of Service?

I firmly say they can and very well should to provide the services customers want. To treat everything as best effort is to harken the dark ages of communication where a network or ISP didn't have any intelligence in their network and had to simply "throw bandwidth at the problem"

To make it even more clear to people - quality of service only exists within a providers network. That's right, their gear, their network, their service. Once you leave their administrative control any quality of service goes out the window and is now in control of whatever transit network you are on. Of course you can dictate that in your peering agreements on whether or not they'll obey your QoS markings, but for the most part you don't trust another provider's QoS. Mainly because they could just mark everything at the best class, overwhelming your resources.
Nice diversion, but I'm confident you already know the issue isn't simple QoS prioritization. The issue is discriminatory service based on source and destination. The issue is giving preferential treatment to traffic for their own content or partner content and degrading service for traffic to other sites. The issue is having major backbone carriers create their own closed AOLs, where the incredible diversity of the Internet today, warts and all, is smothered under the same commercial, committee-approved, banal pap that has lobotomized broadcast television.
 

Aisengard

Golden Member
Feb 25, 2005
1,558
0
76
Providers have several localized monopolies, and that's why we haven't seen much reduction in internet provider prices. I think the same goes for television, too.

We need to make it easier for smaller companies to get into the market. Maybe once the already laid cable becomes a non-issue, or a commodity (I can see why companies wouldn't want their cable being used by rival companies, even though the Telco business already does this), we can have true competition, and hopefully better prices.
 

dchakrab

Senior member
Apr 25, 2001
493
0
0
Bowfinger beat me to it.

The issue is not: I have to get Packet A and Packet B to their destination, but I prioritize one type over another to maintain QoS. The issue is: I see a Competitor Packet and one of My Packets, and I make sure the Competitor Packet gets mugged in an alley on the way to the wedding.

You are also not addressing the pricing issue. Tiering the internet in this manner will allow a telco to *charge* for guaranteed delivery, just like AOL wants to charge for guaranteed email delivery. Last I head, that plan was still in progress by AOL / TimeWarner. It's not enough that you pay for your internet connection, the poor schmuck with AOL pays for his connection *and* his email, now you've got to pay to get your email to him. This isn't a shift in the cost structure, it's an *addition* of a new cost tier.

Similarly, Anandtech pays for its hosting. They use a lot more bandwidth than I do, so I'm willing to bet they pay a ton more than I do for my insignificant bandwidth. I pay for my internet connection. Now, for content to get from Anandtech to me, even though both sides have paid their dues, SBC can step in and ask for a fee. This is not QoS to keep the networks moving forward. This is highway robbery. Or a tollbooth, depending on how you see it.

A Bell exec went on the record as saying "if Google wants to use my pipes, they're going to have to start paying for them" ...as if Google doesn't pay for bandwidth already.

You want to explain that statement in terms of QoS prioritization? It is simply not reasonable to tell Google they cannot count on an independent telcos QoS; the telcos were *paid* tax dollars specifically to build *public* networks under peering agreements that the world had access to. That was how we allowed their monopolies to be built. You keep harping about how customers would never stand for it, and they'd switch, so no reasonable telco would even think of doing this...doesn't Bell insisting that they were going to charge Google strike you as exactly that?

If Google's charged, what happens? They have to eat the cost, and make it back somehow. This means either a. no more Google for you or b. you pay for it (would never work) or c. Google makes the money back through adsense, meaning you pay more for ecommerce. Hell, even as I'm writing this I'm thinking someone else said the exact same thing earlier in this thread.

Your efforts to hijack this discussion with your telecom expertise are just revealing a very solid ignorance of telecom legislation. Read "The $200 Billion Broadband Scandal" by Kushnick...it'll be an eye-opener. There's a lot more to this game than technology...you stated your reasons earlier in this thread, but I'm convinced that if you really researched the implications of network neutrality, you'd agree with me (and a lot of other people) on this.

Dave.
 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
Originally posted by: piasabird
Actually net congestion or busy traffic on the Internet Pipelins should be governed in some way. Here is an example. Some company does something on an internet and this causes traffic which slows down the Internet. They should have to pay a fee, a charge, or possibly a fine for impeding everyone else. Lets say American Idle causes a big slowdown on the Internet. Even though it may be for a narrow timespan they might cause the Internet to slow down due to their voting process or online sites. So they should have a responsibility for slowing down the Internet. The same should go for Spammers, or for a virus or ip attack. There should be a monetary fine for slowing down access or a denial of service attack. Like spammers, if they produce so many emails it bogs down a server then they should have to pay some service fees and penalties.

Hmm, I would venture a moderately informed guess that the real bandwidth hogs are NOT storefronts - they are Itunes, bittorrent and newsgroup servers. You exchange precious few megabytes placing an order on Amazon, or Google searching. But download a few dozen MP3s, and you have probably exceeded all the bandwidth you will use in a year of online Amazon shopping. And video is 5 - 10x worse...a handful of DVD downloads probably exceeds the traffic you will generate to all text-based websites in your lifetime.

Now a big part of me actually supports anti-pirate measures, and so I could easily say "let's close all the bit torrent sites that the pirates use, and this measure is a great place to start." But I won't - what we are dealing with here is how the "societal brain" of the human race is wired from this point onwards. Is there a single group or cluster of cells that control the rest of that brain, or is it free to develop specializations and localized areas of expertise and control naturally?

I don't think we want to limit how the internet adapts and evolves to help us co-ordinate society and grow human potential. This measure attempts to lock in a standard "broadcast" or "pay to play" model, which is fundamentally anti-evolutionary to the net model. It needs to die a death in the Senate, and quickly...

Future Shock
 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07
Sigh.

If you guys only understood how the Internet (and network communications as a whole)works you would understand why this is a bad idea.

I believe many are making up hypothetical circumstances that already exist today.

Want better broadband? Build your own network and get customers.

But do read some to understand the issue rather than make stuff up.

You are incredibly ill-informed. You CANNOT "build your own network". The government has already regulated that business and formed permanent monopolies, by limiting the number of cable and telco providers that can provide "last mile" access to a house. Try as you might, as good a value proposition you might wish to offer consumers - you are barred by law from offering that value proposition, unless you are one of the 1-3 choices for broadband cable connection that consumer already has.

The "government regulation" that exists are the laws governing these monopolies and their competitive position (strangulation). The "Net Neutrality" laws are public interest regulations designed to prevent those monopolies from acting in ways that leverage their monopoly positions against the public interest - mainly by limiting choice and demanding additional payments from both consumers and producers - for no net new goods/servies delivered on the part of the telcos.

I originally posted this before I read some of your later replies - now I understand your position. You are a tech guy with NO UNDERSTANDING of business practices, monopolies, or economics. You think that this is about QoS, latencies, etc. No, it is not. It is all about business practices, payola, and evolving restrictive business models - at the very least. It MAY even be about limiting free speech, as some people who are quick to don tinfoil hats say - but I won't be that radical right now. What exists is scary enough.

Don't look to technical details to understand what this is all about - look to the way radio stations are governed by payola as to what songs they play on their monopoly-granted frequency. Look to how television providers have to pay cable operators for slots on the lower frequencies. Look at how grocery stores charge "frontage" fees to brands on their shelf for placement at eye level. That's what this is about - the telcos ability to charge payola, frontage fees, etc. - all on goods that have NO natural need for such things - because an IP address is a IP address is an IP address. And they want some IP addresses to be more equal than others...if they can profit from it. Essentially, they want to take something that is NOT a differentiated good (bandwidth), and make it one. And that's just plain anti-competitive if it is done by a pre-packaged monopoly...

Future Shock

 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: Darkhawk28
Originally posted by: Cerb
Related question: where can I find who those 269 and 152 voters were? I'm not having any luck, ATM. I may have to tell my reps some of the reasons why I voted for the other guys in '04...

Here ya go. :)

Did anyone even bother to look at these vote tallies? Heh. There really is nothing like a "vote that fell largely along party lines" where dissenters in the opposition party would have brought the outcome to within 1 vote. You gotta love it. I swear there is only one major political party in the US, with 2 packs of blind dipsh!t followers.
 

outriding

Diamond Member
Feb 20, 2002
4,450
3,888
136
Originally posted by: spidey07
Originally posted by: outriding
How about the comcast and the VOIP problem?

Cox and Skype?

Do you even know how peering works?

The best layman's way to describe how net neutrality works





Much better explaination

Oh my goodness. That is some pure non-sense right there. It doesn't even begin to touch upon the issue and just seeks to scare people into "OMG! I can't surf the net!"

Let's get back to the real issue here, can we.

Can a provider give preferential treatment to certain types of traffic, aka Quality of Service?

I firmly say they can and very well should to provide the services customers want. To treat everything as best effort is to harken the dark ages of communication where a network or ISP didn't have any intelligence in their network and had to simply "throw bandwidth at the problem"

To make it even more clear to people - quality of service only exists within a providers network. That's right, their gear, their network, their service. Once you leave their administrative control any quality of service goes out the window and is now in control of whatever transit network you are on. Of course you can dictate that in your peering agreements on whether or not they'll obey your QoS markings, but for the most part you don't trust another provider's QoS. Mainly because they could just mark everything at the best class, overwhelming your resources.


You are right about the QOS inside of a network.

But wrong on everything else.

There are two issues here and you are lumping both issues into one.

First of all you have to understand peering and networking. Peering explained

There is a bit more than what wikipedia has one the website but it is a good start to understand.

If you did not "get" the askaninja then you are not paying that close attention to the message.

Ninja was talking about large chunks of the internet being chopped off because some provider "thinks" you do not need to go there for

what ever reason.

Do you realize this has happened last year? Google out Level3 and cogent.

Here are what people who were effected by the depeering

The official statement from Cogent

When I mean by provider you still might be effected by this senerio...


You -> Comcast -> At&t -> Level3 -> Cogent -> "Your favorite website"

Now you cannot get to your favorite website. What can you do it is out of Comcast's and their partners hands AT&T's

What do you do when the only point was from L3 to Cogent to get to your favorite website?



 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
I really don't think you guys understand the issue. Have you read the Bill? Did you?

The scare tactics and "sky is falling" going on with this is simply mind boggling. I've asked for examples of how you'll get charged for visiting certain sites or how sites have been unusable or any other of this doom and gloom non-sense. There have been none.

I have demonstrated how preferrentail treatment is a good thing and should not be mandated/legislated.

And stop asking me if I understand peering, you should realize by my posts that I could teach you a thing or two about peering and their associated agreements (given that I've written and signed them). The cogent/L3 fiasco was well deserved - peering is supposed to be mutually beneficial, when one side takes more than it gives it is no longer mutually beneficial and charges need to be applied.

 

Future Shock

Senior member
Aug 28, 2005
968
0
0
Originally posted by: spidey07

The scare tactics and "sky is falling" going on with this is simply mind boggling. I've asked for examples of how you'll get charged for visiting certain sites or how sites have been unusable or any other of this doom and gloom non-sense. There have been none.

I have demonstrated how preferrentail treatment is a good thing and should not be mandated/legislated.

OK - let me quote from the source - CISCO Systems. It was a CISCO white paper that first put this out in print, so let me reference it here:
Cisco SCE 1000 Series Service Control Engine
Creating New Broadband Tiers Of Service Using Cisco Service Control Technology



SOLUTION OVERVIEW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CREATING NEW BROADBAND TIERS OF SERVICE USING CISCO SERVICE CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As flat-fee-based Internet access becomes commoditized, a universal billing structure is subject to price competition and providers need to expand service offerings. By creating service levels using Cisco Service Control and providing compelling new content, operators can differentiate IP services at the application level. In doing so, they can expand their subscriber base, increase average revenue per user (ARPU), and improve customer retention. BASICALLY, THEY WANT MORE MONEY - ARPU - FS


CHALLENGE

Providers of broadband services-whether cable, fiber, xDSL, satellite, or fixed wireless-are seeking to deliver advanced IP services profitably on their existing infrastructure, but the market for premium service delivery has been slow to develop on current IP networks that are optimized for subscriber access and packet transport. Providers have begun to introduce service offerings like music downloads and gaming. However, for them to truly capitalize on rich media services, operators must be able to move beyond the flat-fee business models that are currently in place. If network providers can find ways to profitably deliver higher-margin, higher-value services, they can establish new business models and overcome price wars on commoditized transport. AGAIN, IT IS ALL ABOUT THE HIGHER-MARGIN MOVE AWAY FROM FLAT FEE SERVICES - FS
Premium IP service offerings must meet two criteria:
? Customers must be willing to adopt and pay for them. AS SEEN BELOW, THIS WILL BE ACCOMPLISHED BY LESSENING THE PERFORMANCE OF BASIC SERVICES - FS

? Providers must be able to segregate services such that they are differentiated in the network for performance management and billing purposes.

To meet these requirements, providers need to control and meter their network. The ability to control the network allows providers to go from selling connectivity and bandwidth to selling services and application performance on a tiered basis. AGAIN, THE EMPHASIS ON NOT SELLING CONNECTIVITY, BUT SELLING "TIERED PERFORMANCE" - FS
Speed Tiers Versus Application-Level Tiering

Some operators have begun to incrementally charge for speed-based tiers of service. The difference between dial-up and broadband speeds is immediately discernible, but as subscribers move, for example, from a 1-Mb to 3-Mb throughput, the differential is less obvious, and operators typically find that the price premium the market allows for increased performance does not justify the cost of delivering it. Service differentiation at the application level is a much more compelling proposition for subscribers. BASICALLY, WE CAN'T MAKE MARGINS ON MBYTES PER SEC ANYMORE, SO LET'S FIND ANOTHER MODEL - FS To differentiate at this level, operators must create rich media or content-based offerings that appeal to a variety of market niches and can be tailored to meet individual subscribers' needs. THE COMPANIES BUYING THESE ROUTERS AS ISPS DO NOT CREATE CONTENT - ALL THEY DO IS REGULATE HOW YOU ACCESS OTHER'S CONTENT - FS Only by doing so can operators attract new subscribers and compete against alternative broadband offerings.
An All-Encompassing IP Network

The key to successfully creating tiers of service is a single, all-encompassing IP network as opposed to multiple, service-specific networks. However, unless the common IP network can identify a subscriber, classify an application, apply application-level performance, and meter and charge for the application or service bundle, creating broadband service tiers remains beyond a provider's reach. Profitability is essential to the delivery of multiple tiers of Internet access, OK, LOTS TO LOOK AT HERE. FIRSTLY, THEY ARE PROPOSING A SINGLE IP NETWORK - SUCH A NETWORK WOULD NOT HAVE ANY TECHICAL ADVANTAGES TO IN TERMS OF NEW CAPABILITIES THAT DO NOT EXIST IN THE CURRENT IP INFRASTRUCTURE - EXCEPT THE ABILITY TO CLASS AND TIER SERVICE LEVELS FOR BILLING PURPOSES. THIS GOES TO THE HEART OF IT: NO NEW BENEFITS TO THE USER, JUST MORE COSTS - FS [/i] and a service infrastructure that can control and manage differentiated services minimizes operational costs and maximizes capital investment as well as the return on that investment.
SOLUTION

Service-control capabilities extend network infrastructure to facilitate the delivery of premium-quality service offerings and applications. When the network is conditioned to provide differentiated services, providers can meter and bill for these services. Moreover, metering helps the service provider deliver the promised level of service and quality to subscribers.
The Cisco® Service Control solution creates a programmable, intelligent service layer for IP networks. Using stateful deep packet inspection at multigigabit speeds, the solution provides detection, monitoring, and control of virtually any service application, including complex Session Initiation Protocol (SIP) and Real Time Streaming Protocol (RTSP)-based applications. Providers can obtain immediate visibility into their network usage with subscriber and application-level awareness, to better understand who is doing what on their networks. The granular analysis and management capabilities of Cisco Service Control offer providers a means to analyze, control, and profit from premium IP services. YOUR NETWORK USAGE CAN AND WILL BE SLICED, DICED, RECORDED AND ANALYZED TO A VERY FINE GRAINED ANALYSIS. ANYONE WILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO MONITOR YOUR ISP RECORDS AT A GREATER LEVEL OF DETAIL THAN EXISTS NOW, AND THESE RECORDS WILL BE MAINTAINED SO THAT THEY CAN DO MARKETING AND PRICING ANALYSIS ON TRAFFIC PATTERNS. THIS ALSO MEANS THESE RECORDS ARE SUBPEONOBLE, AND REVEALABLE TO THE GOVERNMENT POSSIBLY WITHOUT A WARRANT IN THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENT - FS
Cisco Service Control Engines fully reconstruct data flows analyzing the Layer 7 state of each individual application. True application awareness is the ability to statefully track all subscriber data flows by application and content, and today only Cisco Service Control technology has the ability to maintain application state while tracking network data flows at multigigabit speeds. Typically, the Cisco Service Control Engine resides "in traffic" behind an IP aggregation point and can be configured redundantly to meet high-availability requirements. IBID - MORE DETAIL ON SAME. - FS
Differentiation by Application and Service Level

By using the Cisco Service Control solution, operators can introduce truly innovative offerings and create service tiers that are differentiated by application and service. Subscribers can get services they want at price points that make sense, and providers can serve them at cost levels that help ensure profitability. ONCE AGAIN, IT'S ALL ABOUT THE ISPS PROFITABILITY - AND THOSE PRICE POINTS "MAKE SENSE" TO THE ISPS, NOT THE CONSUMER - FS
By using a common IP network enhanced with service-control capabilities, providers can test service offerings, trial pricing models, and promote services free of the business risks associated with single-purpose network build-outs. The ability to dictate network-resource usage based on Layer 7 application classification and a per-subscriber policy creates limitless opportunities for operators to tier Internet access and develop new service bundles. AND AS WILL BE PRESENTED, MOST OF THOSE SERVICE BUNDLES ARE BUILT BY LIMITING WHAT EXISTING SERVICES CAN DO AT A FIXED RATE, AND REQUIRING THE PAYMENT OF ADDITIONAL CHARGES TO LIFT THOSE LIMITS - FS Here are three examples.
Broadband "Light" Service

Historically, operators have created "light" broadband services targeted at customers who may use the network infrequently or wish to limit their spending on Internet services. The assumption is that after users are "hooked," the experience motivates them to spend more on services. Traditional approaches using a low-speed tier or a global monthly allowance have failed to increase penetration or even resulted in cannibalizing existing revenues as some users migrate to the lower-cost option.
Using Cisco Service Control, operators can create a differentiated broadband service offering broadband speed for traditional applications, but limiting more advanced applications to dial-up speeds.The idea is to demonstrate how speed can enhance or degrade an overall application-level experience. An example of such an offering might include providing the following:
? Web and mail traffic at full broadband (1.5 Mbps) speed and limiting sophisticated applications such as peer-to-peer streaming, voice over IP (VoIP), or video to lower dial-up rates (for example, 64 kbps).

This approach has the following advantages:
? Dial-up users receive a high-speed experience for their basic application, introducing them to the advantages of full broadband performance.

? The likelihood of negatively impacting existing broadband revenue flow is small because the broadband user's experience for advanced applications would be unacceptable.

? Operator expenses to offer such a service are comparatively low because applications needing much bandwidth, such as peer-to-peer, are throttled to prevent network congestion. This allows the operator to price this type of bundle at a charge that is appropriate for the target subscriber without incurring cost of price elasticity.

? When "light" subscribers are on the broadband infrastructure, they can select higher-value packages and are motivated to do so by an improved user experience. This makes them candidates for other applications and services, and operators can increase overall average revenue per subscriber (ARPU).

One challenge many service providers face is the need to create a low-end service. Cisco Service Control allows providers to control services at the application and subscriber level which permits operators to experiment with different pricing and tiering schemes without incurring additional costs. Offerings can be quickly deployed and analyzed for broader deployment. Without the granular analysis and control capabilities of Cisco Service Control, operators cannot easily track and manage new packaging alternatives, resulting in a less systematic approach to the marketplace.
SOHO and Telecommuter Package

Small office or home office (SOHO) users as well as telecommuters are a primary target market for a dedicated broadband package. Using their broadband connection for business purposes, these customers are likely to pay for value-added services on top of their basic service. Connection throughput is an important capability that operators can offer, but additional features can help attract and retain these customers by addressing other concerns.
Using Cisco Service Control, operators can offer SOHO and telecommuter customers the ability to control how their broadband connection is used and prioritize it according to their individual needs. For example, a telecommuter may elect to turn off peer-to-peer or Xbox applications or limit them so that VPN or e-mail traffic receives higher priority over file exchanges or gaming transactions that other household Internet subscribers may be attempting to use in parallel from the same home connection.
This approach offers clear advantages:
? Operators are offering a self-selected capability to home users as a value-added service for additional fees, increasing ARPU.

? Self-managing a broadband connection helps customers gain personal control over their service, improving customer satisfaction and increasing their loyalty.

Additionally, value-added enhancements can be offered to further strengthen the provider-to-subscriber relationship. Such enhancements might include:
? Spam zombie, virus, or denial-of-service (DoS) attack identification, notification, and protection

? Parental controls that ensure Websites and video content are not accessible by minors

? Content protection facilitating third-party content distribution by providing new ways to protect copyrighted content by managing access rights from accounts or device types on the network

Application-Based Bandwidth on Demand

Providers can also use Cisco Service Control to offer quota-based or time-based bandwidth-on-demand capabilities and allow customers to select application-level options. For example, younger subscribers may find it enticing to subscribe to packages that selectively accelerate bandwidth or use a "turbo-button" option for temporary higher bandwidth.
Flexible alternatives can be structured for subscribers in a variety of ways:
? Providers can offer users a quota-based limit for music or video downloads at higher speeds. When this limit is reached, the subscriber returns to a lower speed or is directed to a portal to select another fee-based increment.

? Subscribers can choose to accelerate a selected application for a period of time, such as a 2-hour block of accelerated performance of interactive gaming per day.

? A "turbo button" could allow for faster, metered bandwidth for as long as it is on and return to lower speeds when it is off.

Options like these have obvious advantages for both providers and subscribers. Subscribers can select usage increments on a scalable basis or elect to pay for bandwidth acceleration for prescribed periods. Providers can increase ARPU by offering selectable, granular options to users who otherwise might not pay for full-time, high-speed Internet access. As these subscribers become accustomed to services enhanced by accelerated bandwidth, they may be more willing to upgrade their connections.Granular Analysis and Control Facilitates Tiering

Developing different levels or tiers of service becomes possible with Cisco Service Control because the service provider can identify individual subscribers, classify applications, deliver application-level performance, and meter and charge for services or service bundles. The creation of multiple tiers of service allows providers to expense multiple services across the same operational structure as nontiered services. Any change that the service provider can make to increase the number of subscribers while keeping costs steady leads to profit with an aggressive return on investment (ROI).
The Cisco Service Control solution can be used to optimize network bandwidth for specific applications and users. Service providers can cater to their customers by actively dictating how network bandwidth is used at the application and subscriber level. This makes it possible to attract new customers and retain current ones without expensive network upgrades or bandwidth acquisition.
Moreover, reporting and usage information can be fed to billing systems or other business-intelligence applications. With the Cisco solution, operators are able to capitalize on their current infrastructure investments to increase profitability and attract customers. New products and services are easy to deploy and launch. Cisco Service Control helps providers become more efficient, better informed, and in better control of their networks.
BUSINESS BENEFITS

The Cisco Service Control solution helps service providers to make better use of their existing networks and enhance their overall management and control. Providers can:
? Decrease costs for network services and products

? Take advantage of usage analysis, capacity planning, and quality of service (QoS) enhancements to develop and manage new billing models by application or service bundle

? Use subscriber-aware reporting to evaluate and manage customer requirements

? Institute policies to control individual usage or high-bandwidth applications

? Improve customer satisfaction by reducing network congestion and improving performance

? Accurately report on application traffic to increase visibility into network activity and perform informed capacity planning

? Maintain user- or application-based quotas to create quota-based services, manage acceptable usage policies, and ensure fairness between subscribers

? Reduce operational costs by monitoring the use of expensive transit links

? Eliminate unnecessary network upgrades by extending the programmable solution to new and emerging protocols and applications

? Increase the long-term strength of their network environment with a programmable and extensible solution that can easily adapt to changes in peer-to-peer networking

? Reserve bandwidth for exclusive application use

? Allocate bandwidth for tier-1 customers and applications

'Nuff said? It's all about the money...

Future Shock




 

spidey07

No Lifer
Aug 4, 2000
65,469
5
76
Tiering of services is a good thing, heck services are tiered today.

It allows a provider to offer what I've been talking about, the future of the Internet.

And in order to do that they have to provide preferrential treatment of traffic.

Just like I've been saying. This bill would have sent us to the dark ages of network communication.