backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 13 comment(s) - last by hazezilla.. on Mar 31 at 11:12 AM
ISPs still say government is wasting time studying net neutrality

Net Neutrality has been a hot topic in the media as well as the IT industry as of late. The issue being discussed is whether or not Internet service providers (ISPs) should be allowed to control how their bandwidth is used by content providers and users and what is actually allowed to pass through their network.

While the network providers have argued that net neutrality is a non-issue, large content companies such as Google, Microsoft and others have voiced against service providers. Late last year top tier ISP Verizon sponsored a government survey on net neutrality which many felt was biased.

This time around, the Federal Communications Commission is launching an inquiry of its own (PDF) into the effects of having or not having net neutrality. The FCC also stated in its survey that it supports the openness and will continue to promote the interconnected nature of a public Internet. The actual FCC study aims to find out the following:

  • How broadband providers are managing Internet traffic on their networks today
  • Whether providers charge different prices for different speeds or capacities of service
  • Whether our policies should distinguish between content providers that charge end users for access to content and those that do not
  • How consumers are affected by these practices

The FCC is stating that it would like to find out how broadband service providers are managing Internet traffic on their network, and if there are any service providers currently setting up tiered networks. The study is being done to see how service providers treat content providers and whether or not all of it really affects the general user. Most ISPs have argued that government agencies should worry about other problems than net neutrality.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
What's the ISPs' case?
By jzietman on 3/29/2007 4:15:34 PM , Rating: 4
Could anyone please explain the case that the ISPs are presenting? Why do they say net neutrality is a non-issue? From my point of view as an end user, net neutrality seems absolutely essential; how do the ISPs argue their case?




RE: What's the ISPs' case?
By TomZ on 3/29/2007 4:25:57 PM , Rating: 2
ISPs don't want any additional government regulation of their business practices. I don't think it is any more complex than that. Therefore, their publicly-stated case is bogus. It's all just a game.


RE: What's the ISPs' case?
By scrapsma54 on 3/29/2007 4:49:27 PM , Rating: 2
I think they shouldn't downgrade the internet, but instead uncap it a little. It is not fair to those who had paid for their fast internet and one day they find out they get capped down a couple megs. I know road runner is doing uncapps and I think that is a wiser decision. Also if they want people to pay for internet, just provide a cheaper and slower service so you can bring in more customers. That way there will be no hatred nor tears.


RE: What's the ISPs' case?
By TheTerl on 3/29/2007 7:14:48 PM , Rating: 3
Just to throw out a specific example, ISPs present the case that streaming video services could be greatly expanded without net neutrality. The rationale is that streaming traffic (where high bandwidth and low latency is crucial) will be prioritized higher than other data, which presumably is less sensitive. In the case of net neutrality, they say, this priority would be impossible and quality would suffer.

Personally, I think there are other ways they could go about offering video and similar services, while allowing net neutrality. I'm more inclined to agree with the other people here that it really comes down to them trying to get themselves paid twice for carrying the same volume of data.


RE: What's the ISPs' case?
By hazezilla on 3/31/2007 11:12:06 AM , Rating: 2
$$$$

Question who pays for all in improvements for faster/better service?

Does any reasonable person think there 30-50 dollars a month will make the back bone wider?
Will it happen by magic? NO it cost money to make upgrades. Somebody has to pay.
Should there be a tax and the money distributed back to providers. More taxes and government control?

Higher fees to those who use more is the most reasonable solution. Just like highways. bigger heaver truck pay more that personal cars. And just like the highway system you make money on the roads you pay more, fuel taxes tire taxes, use fees tolls etc.

The same thing needs to happen to the internet. the smallest users pay the least heavy traffic pays more.

The local connection fees that are paid cover the cost of local service but who pays for interconnection service?

I think those who profit from it, VOip providers, software distributors, entertainment providers. Should bear more cost.

Or should the cost of improvements fall back on to consumers so big companies can make a larger profit.

Your Choice


it is a non-issue
By rika13 on 3/29/2007 8:48:37 PM , Rating: 2
as long as they aren't blocking or intentionally slowing down someone maliciously, its ok

what they are complaining about is IPv6 has a feature called QoS (Quality of Service) which allows for traffic to get a higher routing priority and guaranteed speeds; other traffic gets the standard IPv4 treatment that we have been enjoying since the internet was opened to the public; in other words, you can take a faster toll lane on the information superhighway instead of the normal as fast as get

while the name is catchy and says neutrality, it's really the hand of Führer Howard Dean trying to keep the masses of America down by keeping QoS and all it's goodies away because they will help Americans become a land of prosperity, the greatest poison to the democrat party there is




RE: it is a non-issue
By alifbaa on 3/29/2007 11:05:07 PM , Rating: 2
You sound knowledgeable, but I have to respectfully disagree. When a company like AT&T starts adding in QOS to the current IPV4 network and targets services such as Skype, which seek to compete with other areas of their business, I think you have to call that malicious. I (their customer) paid them for access to the internet. I in no way agreed to only use it for certain purposes aside from illicit activities. I made the choice to use Skype, I am entitled to an absolute expectation that my data will be treated the same as anything else.

When an ISP filters non-critical traffic, such as email for the purpose of maximizing bandwidth use, and such filtering results in a 5 second delay in a message being received, they have done nothing wrong. When they intentionally target competing technologies for the purpose of enhancing their other businesses, it is anticompetitive and should be regulated/legislated out of existence.

They are engaging in these practices right now, it is not theoretical, and it has nothing to do with QOS in general or IPV6 in particular. IPV6 QOS, to my knowledge, only adds more categories and improves upon the QOS solutions available today. While what they are doing is similar to QOS, it is unrelated since they are selectively down rating previously designated high priority traffic of only certain specific data types related to specific companies in competition against their own.


RE: it is a non-issue
By rika13 on 3/30/2007 7:18:12 AM , Rating: 2
read the first sentence of my post: as long as they aren't maliciously blocking or slowing down people, its ok

what AT&T wants to do is implement QoS, plain and simple; not block Skype, VoIP still cant compete with a land-line because VoIP doesn't work when the power is out, which is usually when you need to call either power company to fix it or call 911

what Skype (and the rest of the "net-neutrality" group of LARGE COMPANIES like Google, Yahoo!, and M$) is doing is just whining about it since someone with money can afford the higher priority lines; as anyone who knows about minimum wage or business taxes will tell you, it just gets passed on to the customer (you'll still have your free calls if you want, but there will be a high-priority plan for $50/mo or you can get a high-priority call for say $0.10/min)

link to QoS: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QoS
link to best effort: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Best-effort

summary: AT&T isn't blocking or discriminating against Skype or anyone else; its simply Skype complaining that they can't get the high priority routing without paying for it; there is nothing that will prevent ANYONE from using the standard "best effort" delivery that the internet has used since time immemorial


Don't Expect Much
By SteelyKen on 3/29/2007 5:28:00 PM , Rating: 2
Don't expect much from Kevin Martin and this version of the FCC in the way of looking out for the consumer. I imagine this will be a study and nothing else.




Carrier Neutrality
By nresare on 3/29/2007 7:35:36 PM , Rating: 2
Here’s an interesting example of how the principles of Net Neutrality can be linked back to the Internet’s older brother, the telecom network. A few weeks ago, AT&T began blocking calls to services like FreeConferenceCall.com. AT&T did this without filing a direct lawsuit, without petitioning the FCC and without even contacting Free Conferencing Corp, the parent company. These types of free services are completely legal and AT&T is using self-help and cowboy justice to financially bully competing services out of business. This is the world of Carrier Neutrality. You can learn more at blog.freeconferencecall.com.




this is bad if this passes
By AntDX316 on 3/30/07, Rating: 0
RE: this is bad if this passes
By AntDX316 on 3/30/2007 3:35:36 AM , Rating: 2
per bandwidth usage not per hour*


By FastLaneTX on 3/30/2007 11:28:51 AM , Rating: 2
This whole net neutrality thing is all about failed economic models, not QOS. The telcos want to use "business" revenue to subsidize "consumer" revenue, which is how the PSTN works. The Internet doesn't work that way.

When I request something from YouTube, I pay my ISP for the cost of moving packets to/from a peering point, and YouTube pays their ISP for the cost of moving packets to/from that same peering point. The problem is that my ISP isn't charging me anywhere near the real cost of moving the packets on my half of that connection, so they want YouTube to pay them for my half. YouTube, of course, is already paying for their half of the connection because they have a sane ISP.

Carriers are looking to enforce this "pay for both halves" model by using QOS to block or degrade competitors' connections while improving the quality of their own services, in an effort to blackmail YouTube et al into paying them for something _I'm supposed to be paying for_. It all comes down to ISPs not charging "consumers" for the true cost of providing service: the going rate for commercial IP transport is about $50/Mbit, and I'm paying about $10/Mbit. If I only use 20% of my link capacity, everything is kosher, but if I go above that my ISP is losing money and, rather than raise my rate to match my usage or cap my usage to match my rate, they want to force other people to pay for my excess usage. Sorry, but the Internet just doesn't work that way.

Another facet is that P2P traffic completely destroys this cross-subsidy model. If you have two "consumers" exchanging traffic, both sides are getting a free ride and there's nobody for the ISP to extort money from. Again, instead of raising rates, they want to use QOS to degrade P2P service and blackmail customers into using the ISP's own for-pay services.




"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

DailyTech Poll
Which web browser do you use on your primary personal machine? 






44 Comments









botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki