backtop

Print E-mail del.icio.us 55 comment(s) - last by phxfreddy.. on Apr 17 at 10:15 AM

Virgin Media's Steve Berkett  (Source: informitv)
Those who don't pay relegated to the "bus lane"

While it’s no secret that ISPs are generally hostile to the concept of network neutrality, few have articulated their hostility in terms as overt as Virgin Media’s CEO, Neil Berkett.

“This network neutrality thing is a load of bollocks,” said Berkett, speaking offhandedly in a conference call in February of this year. Reporter Kate Bulkley picked up the comments in April’s issue of Television magazine, as part of a report on Virgin’s cable “fast-lane” Video-on-Demand  service.

In his comments, Berkett revealed that Virgin Media – the UK’s second largest ISP at 3.6 million subscribers, and already known to employ traffic throttling in an effort to manage its “limited capacity” – is currently in talks with several major internet content providers for priority service, and the company is threatening that anyone who doesn’t pay Virgin’s fees will be relegated to the “bus lane” of service.

It’s interesting to note that Berkett is relatively new to Virgin, having joined parent company NTL as COO in September 2005 following a previous role as managing director at Lloyds TSB bank – then being named Virgin Media CEO in March 2008 knowing “nothing” about the cable business. Critics dismissed Berkett’s comment as a sign of his inexperience: “The unguarded comment betrays a misunderstanding of the purpose of bus lanes,” writes informitv, “which are intended to provide a faster service for public transport services, rather than those in private vehicles.”

“Nevertheless, it suggests the possibility of two-speed internet access, with a fast lane for [content providers] willing to pay more for the privilege.”

While viciously opposed by content providers and websites throughout the world, in most countries ISPs are free to manage traffic as they see fit: provided customers get to where they need to go in a timely fashion, the world’s governments have been slow to intervene in ISP machinations. This is not the situation in the United States, however, as the topic continually proves itself as one of the internet’s latest battlegrounds between ISPs, the content industry, and customers – with the FCC acting as mediator. The issue hit its peak around late 2006 to early 2007, before dying down and then peaking again late last year following the discovery that Comcast began aggressively interfering with customers’ BitTorrent usage.

While it is unknown which providers are in negotiations with Virgin, If Berkett’s statements are true, then the ISPs’ UK customers can look forward to a tiered internet in the near future.

Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
By slashbinslashbash on 4/15/2008 1:20:35 AM , Rating: 1
The Internet is a series of networks all pasted together. For me to send this post to DailyTech, it goes through 4 or 5 routers to my local ISP, then through several companies' backbones, then through several routers at the colo facility where the servers are hosted. All in all, my packets will travel through probably 15-20 or so routers and at least 4-5 networks owned by different companies. These companies all connect together at the edges of their networks, and the packets flow freely. If one router is down or slow, traffic will take another route to get to the final destination.

This above scenario is fine and dandy for most HTTP-based protocols, which are not real-time constrained. If I'm downloading an HTML page, an email, a PDF or an .ISO over BitTorrent then it doesn't matter exactly how long it takes for me to get it, or even what order the packets come in. This is NOT the case for real-time applications like VoIP or video conferencing, and even more important things like robotic telesurgery. In these applications, latency is critical. The order of packets matters greatly. It is easy to guarantee a level of service across a single network. But what about multiple networks? Maybe Verizon is my ISP, and Verizon may be providing me great bandwidth and latencies across their network, but once my traffic crosses over to Sprint or AT&T then there are no guarantees. There is no endpoint-to-endpoint minimum level of service guarantee.

Think of what is possible without this "net neutrality" business. You could have a guarantee of the shortest ping time, shortest number of hops or whatever metric you want for a fast connection from one endpoint to another. You could even have persistent connections, an "open line" from one end to the other with guaranteed bandwidth instead of having each packet treated individually and routed willy-nilly. Basically, it will make the Internet perform like a big Intranet for selected applications.

That's exactly what the ISPs want to do. They want to create a parallel Internet with service level guarantees across all of their networks for high-value, real-time traffic like teleconferencing. Almost all websites and normal home users would still use the same old network, and bandwidth will still increase over time just like it is now. But certain users and applications (hospitals, big corporations) would pay the extra to get the service level guarantee from endpoint to endpoint, which is simply not possible with the current state of the Internet.

The call for Net Neutrality is a call for limiting the possibilities of what can happen on the Nets. People are already paying more for larger amounts of bandwidth. This is really all that's needed for packet-switched applications that make up "The Internet" as we know it today. If we want to get to fully reliable real-time apps then we will require a different paradigm, and Net Neutrality kills that opportunity.




By caqde on 4/15/2008 2:01:12 AM , Rating: 1
Yes, but unfortunately people tend to think two ways. I don't know why, but they think this way. On the one side you have complete neutrality and on the other you have the dimwits that believe in utter control of the network. They believe everything on their network should be throttled to their benefit.

And then we have those that are somewhere in between one or the other.

Honestly I think things should be throttled, but I think for it to work well there needs to be a consensus to what gets throttled and how. Whats the point of company A throttling one type of traffic, when companies B,C,D,E,F,G,H,I,J, and K who you went through to send and receive this type of traffic either didn't or throttled it in the opposite manner?


By wayout41 on 4/15/2008 5:47:06 AM , Rating: 4
If an ISP advertises 15mb cable connection or more then they should have the capacity to back it up. This, in the uk is a major problem, I don't know about the US Net Neutrality issue. The ISP's haven't got a good infrastructure to support the higher levels of traffic they are now facing. So instead of charging customers more and getting and investing in infrastructure to provide the service they promised they want to charge content providers. As a customer if I want better internet I am happy to pay for it, less contention better pipes etc. The idea of segregating an underpowered network to provide a fast and slow lane seams massively daft. This is all about ISP's suddenly having to actually provide the bandwidth, now we are watch tv etc, they have been promissing customers for years. They can't do it and where too short sighted to invest and now they want to pass on the blame and the cost.


By InternetGeek on 4/15/2008 2:05:23 AM , Rating: 3
I think that the functionality you are describing can be provided already without even having to speak about network neutrality. If laws were passed to implement network neutrality as it is defined by the debate today we'd have to pay extra to access the html, pdf and even .ISO files you are speaking about... apart of whatever plan you ISP has you take.


By slashbinslashbash on 4/15/2008 4:29:58 AM , Rating: 1
quote:
This above scenario is fine and dandy for most HTTP-based protocols,


I meant TCP/IP, not HTTP.


By afkrotch on 4/15/2008 7:56:45 AM , Rating: 5
quote:
Think of what is possible without this "net neutrality" business. You could have a guarantee of the shortest ping time, shortest number of hops or whatever metric you want for a fast connection from one endpoint to another. You could even have persistent connections, an "open line" from one end to the other with guaranteed bandwidth instead of having each packet treated individually and routed willy-nilly. Basically, it will make the Internet perform like a big Intranet for selected applications.


Or you could have the longest ping times, highest hops, or whatever, cause you can't spend the money for faster access. If there is the fastest, then there is a slowest. As it's a business, it's obvious the fastest comes with a price premium.

Course when it comes to time-sensitive service, majority of companies will buy a dedicated line. VoIP or VidoIP hardly require such service.

quote:
That's exactly what the ISPs want to do. They want to create a parallel Internet with service level guarantees across all of their networks for high-value, real-time traffic like teleconferencing. Almost all websites and normal home users would still use the same old network, and bandwidth will still increase over time just like it is now. But certain users and applications (hospitals, big corporations) would pay the extra to get the service level guarantee from endpoint to endpoint, which is simply not possible with the current state of the Internet.


They aren't wanting to create a parallel internet. They want to reshape it. It's guaranteed that home users would be affected by this. Use the same old network? WTF are you talking about, it's all the same network. They'll simply force traffic over specific paths for specific users. Oh, pay for higher speed, we'll push you through this fast path. Didn't pay, you'll go over this longer path. It's not like Virgin is going to start building a whole new network. They'll simply throttle their current customer base. It's simply too costly to build up your network. If it wasn't, every location in the UK would have 1000 meg service. Instead, they're stuck with crap 3 meg service from the likes of BT or NTL.

quote:
The call for Net Neutrality is a call for limiting the possibilities of what can happen on the Nets. People are already paying more for larger amounts of bandwidth. This is really all that's needed for packet-switched applications that make up "The Internet" as we know it today. If we want to get to fully reliable real-time apps then we will require a different paradigm, and Net Neutrality kills that opportunity.


Dedicated links. Companies already purchase them. Specific service level agreements already exists, where you get guaranteed bandwith. Sure you don't guaranteed bandwith across another companies' network, but having no Net Neutrality isn't going to fix that.

Let's say there is no net neutrality. I pay Verizon an $2000 a month for a guaranteed T3 link, but a lot of my data traverses across Sprint's network. Who's to say Verizon and Sprint have an agreement that my data gets prioritized? Maybe Sprint will throttle all non-Sprint service users across there network, cause they need to provide fast service for their own customers.

I see this happening more than not. If both Verizon and Sprint have their own set of prioritized customers, that bandwith needs to come from somewhere. If they both have agreements with each other for these users, then I simply see them throttling home users whenever they can. Unlike businesses, we don't have a dedicated bandwith.

If they have a monopoly in your region, then they can do whatever they feel like, cause you have no one else to go to.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/15/2008 9:48:51 AM , Rating: 2
> "Or you could have the longest ping times, highest hops, or whatever, cause you can't spend the money for faster access"

Yes, but that "longest ping time" is what you already have now. Net Neutrality doesn't mean you get to be faster for free...it means everyone stays the same slow rate.

> "If they have a monopoly in your region, then they can do whatever they feel like, cause you have no one else to go to. "

And THAT, sir, is the real problem that needs to be solved. Not Net Neutrality. "Last-mile" regulations that perpuate local-area monopolies need to go.

> "They aren't wanting to create a parallel internet...Use the same old network? WTF are you talking about, it's all the same network"

In effect, creating a parrallel internet is *exactly* what's being planned. Physically, it may be the same connections, but logically, they're different pipes.


By afkrotch on 4/15/2008 10:29:51 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, but that "longest ping time" is what you already have now. Net Neutrality doesn't mean you get to be faster for free...it means everyone stays the same slow rate.


Right now, the way ISPs work is they offload whatever they can to free up their own bandwith on their own networks. If they can push you off onto someone else's network, they probably do.

quote:
And THAT, sir, is the real problem that needs to be solved. Not Net Neutrality. "Last-mile" regulations that perpuate local-area monopolies need to go.


Some things simply need government intervention, such as the internet. I'm in the US military and we have monopolies on our bases for ISPs.

Japan being one of them. Allied Telesys is the only ISP for US forces bases on mainland Japan. You are charge $75 for 10 meg dsl service. The bandwith they purchase comes from NTT. Not sure how much Allied is charge for the bandwith on their networks, but 10 feet away from the main gain, users can purchase 100 meg service with VOIP for 3000 yen (about $38) from NTT. But hey, Allied has a monopoly and those living on base really have no choice in who they can go through, let alone where they live.

quote:
In effect, creating a parrallel internet is *exactly* what's being planned. Physically, it may be the same connections, but logically, they're different pipes.


They aren't creating anything, as it's already in place. I understand the whole vlans and such, but they already provide dedicated bandwith to higher paying users. Mostly businesses.

Logically they are different pipes over the same physical connection, so limitations will exist. Because of such, other users will become affected.

If you have an apartment complex situated within a business sector and only one drop in the area, you don't think that apartment complex won't be limited to make headway for the businesses who happen to pay for higher access? A single cable only pushes so much data, regardless of how many pipes you put on it.


By masher2 (blog) on 4/15/2008 10:48:10 AM , Rating: 2
> "They aren't creating anything, as it's already in place"

Err, no it isn't. Can you now get a realtime 1080p HD video feed, with guaranteed in-order packet delivery and sub-10ms latency?

The longhaul cables are in place for such a scheme. That's it. But that's a tiny piece of the total puzzle. It'll cost tens of billions to fill in the other pieces.

The best solution is to make those advanced services available only to the people who need them -- i.e. who are willing to pay for them. Government regulation that forces a single pricing scheme for all users, regardless of need, is the height of idiocy.


By Alexstarfire on 4/15/2008 11:40:33 AM , Rating: 2
No, you can't, but a lot of that is simply because of bandwidth constraints and nothing to do with net neutrality. If we could all have 100Mbps connections with guaranteed bandwidth then it'd work just fine. Unfortunately what we have is far from it. Heck, even at 25Mbps it may be possible. Bandwidth is usually not guaranteed unless you pay TONS more for it, though.

As for sub 10ms pings... is that even possible? I mean, even if you have a straight line going from your computer to whatever, if you're 5k miles away would it even be possible to get that low of a latency? It's not like the line itself doesn't add latency.


By afkrotch on 4/15/2008 1:44:31 PM , Rating: 2
quote:
Err, no it isn't. Can you now get a realtime 1080p HD video feed, with guaranteed in-order packet delivery and sub-10ms latency?


If I was still living in Tokyo...yes. Gig fiber directly into your home is a wonderful thing and for only 6000 yen a month to boot. That 6000 yen is for IPTV, VOIP, and internet. Highly doubt I anyone would get sub-10ms latency. Shoot, me pinging a local website of a town roughly about 5km away still have a 25ms latency. That's on a dedicated circuit for our infrastructure too. But proxies and firewalls slow things down a bit.

S.Korea had something similiar too, but a little more costly.

Germany? So far behind I cry. Same with the UK. Same with the States. They have been the worst countries I have lived in, in terms of ISP speeds.

quote:
The best solution is to make those advanced services available only to the people who need them -- i.e. who are willing to pay for them. Government regulation that forces a single pricing scheme for all users, regardless of need, is the height of idiocy.


By no means did I say there should be a single pricing scheme for all users, but throttling my usage due to my activities is hardly a proper solution either.

I pay 50 Euro for a 16 meg connection. Should my 16 meg connection be different than any other user's 16 meg connection cause I'm constantly downloading? Cause I like to surf youtube?

But my service shouldn't be hindered due to someone else's usage.


By Etsp on 4/15/2008 12:09:06 PM , Rating: 2
Latency is hardly a real constraint on VoIP or even video conferencing. I agree, Robotic telesurgery deserves to have its own pipes though...

The latency you are talking about, in most network scenarios, is usually less than 200ms, less than 1/5 of a second! Do you really think that 1/5 of a second is even noticeable in these scenarios? It takes longer than that for people to start replying to a question or statement, unless they are trying to interrupt someone else who is speaking. The latencies would be negligible at best, unless there is something wrong along the route (at which point it would get redirected)


By OldProgrammer on 4/15/2008 3:10:15 PM , Rating: 2
Most of the posters seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of the net neutrality issue. Net neutrality advocates want content from all content providers treated equally. It is about free speech, free enterprise and freedom to innovate. It has nothing to do with technology or network architecture.

Network Neutrality would not prevent giving priority to high value packets like VOIP or live video streaming. It would only require that high value packets from all content providers be treated equally. It would also require that all low value packets be treated equally. But this isn’t what Virgin Media is talking about doing. They want to give some content providers priority over other content providers.

“Berkett revealed that Virgin Media… is currently in talks with several major internet content providers for priority service, and the company is threatening that anyone who doesn’t pay Virgin’s fees will be relegated to the “bus lane” of service”

Think about that.

ISPs are in this to make money. They would have no incentive to maintain enough bandwidth for all sites. As long as the content providers who pay them are getting through, they won’t care how much the smaller players squawk. Over time the imbalance between sites that pay for priority service and those that don’t, would make the sites that don’t pay unusable.

Say you like using Wikipedia, or another non-profit website with limited revenues. Time Warner comes along and creates their own for profit encyclopedia with tons of ads, and no negative content about Time Warner or any of it’s friends. If your ISP is not net neutral, and is paid by Time Warner to give them priority service, you’ll find that downloading pages from Wikipedia takes forever, but pages from Time Warner’s encyclopedia pop right up.

Say you came up with the idea for YouTube, but ISPs were not net neutral. As soon as some big corporation saw you were successful they would use their priority service to blow you out of the water.

Today the internet is filled with people who expose the incompetence and wrongdoing of some of these big corporations. Don’t doubt for a minute that big corporations would use a non-neutral internet to make those voices very hard to hear.

You guys need to learn what net neutrality really means before you make uninformed statements dismissing it. You are only helping big corporations in their quest to control the content on the internet. That’s what net neutrality is trying to prevent.


By Alexstarfire on 4/15/2008 6:01:24 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, the whole idea of net neutrality is that EVERYTHING is treated equally. That's is something that should never be changed either. Sure, we have dedicated business lines with guaranteed speeds, but that doesn't prioritize information for you. I don't need my website data taking longer to load than my streaming video. Just the thought of that conjures up images of stupidity.


By krwhite on 4/16/2008 2:16:13 PM , Rating: 2
Do you have a new and upcoming website? If not, then you might not understand why people could be so angry about one website having precedence over another.

A network without neutrality is like saying, those who came before you will ALWAYS be better than you! How stupid is that?

Take all the established brick and mortar buildings, and create gravity wells everywhere else so it takes 50x the effort to build new buildings, so that others can't even establish themselves. This would insure the profits of those companies.

Do you enjoy being stepped on? I don't? Please, understand the developer's perspective, and not the consumer's.


By phxfreddy on 4/17/2008 10:15:24 AM , Rating: 2
I think we as users are in dangerous positions if the ISP's get to set priority levels on the info. Remember AOL and its little private garden? The good thing was AOL was not the network. Thus you were free to liberate yourself after you realized what a goofy service it was. The problem with ComCast and the like having their hands on the throttle is they can start gardening again. We won't be able to leave pollyanna's garden because how many companies run a physical wire cable to my house? 1! ( 1 or 1 factorial take your choice)


Remember
By pauldovi on 4/15/2008 3:08:37 AM , Rating: 2
Not all people that are against net-neutrality specifically support the idea of pay for content systems. We simply don't want to add more government regulation where it isn't needed. A free-market approach is always a better approach.




RE: Remember
By wetwareinterface on 4/15/2008 4:05:15 AM , Rating: 4
yeah tell that "free market approach always being better" to a child laborer working 18 hour days for $2.00 an hour.

the free market approach without regulation leads to the side with any power in the interchange screwing the other side for as much as they can. corporations aren't evil or good, they are an orginization with only one goal; make the most money they can. take away regulation or oversight or don't include enough when neccesary and the profit seeking behaviour takes the path of highest gains and screw the consequences to anyone that gets in the way. that's why we have regulation and laws governing what comapanies can and cannot do. that's one of the functions of the government, to protect the majority it governs by passing laws and regulating businesses from doing harm to the people through pure profit seeking.

net neutrality is a must. i for one do not want the government involved either. but what i want in this case isn't going to happen, so i choose the obvious lesser of 2 evils and want my government to step in and make it mandatory that isp's cannot differentiate the type of traffic they 'wish' to provide. it's all just KB per second and you sold me xxx KB per second, what i choose to do with it is my concern not yours.

besides these types of isp pay per service won't and can't work unless they themselves host and provide the service and it remains on their own network only. i have no problem with this type of system as it's their content and their servers and they can charge what they want for extras. charging a customer extra, however, for a third party's website or a net protocol to function as fast as the speed they have contracted for to actually work at that speed is what needs to be regulated. and this is what isps want to have control over.

comcast hates bit torrent and sites that host t.v. content or movie downloads as it's a revenue loss for them on their cable t.v. / premium channels/ pay per view business side. but hey that's their tough luck that it's now possible to do it and you don't need a cable t.v. company anymore. it's the reason why they branched out into internet / phone service in the first place to make up for lost revenue in the cable t.v. markets due to sattelite. now they have another competitor in the internet and they want to shut that competition source off their network or charge their customers extra to receive youtube like services, irrespective of the fact that they contracted to provide xx KB per second and when you go to do anything that needs that much speed they choke you off (peer to peer currently) or want to charge extra for it (online media sources in the future).

this is why net neutrality is a must, other wise the whole structure of the web would become dead ends as isp's buy up specific services and sites to offer exclusives or throttle "bandwidth heavy traffic to preserve the integrity of our network for all our customers". instead of actually being able to provide the bandwidth they advertised and sold you they want to charge you extra to actually use it to it's full abilities.


RE: Remember
By afkrotch on 4/15/2008 8:12:16 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
yeah tell that "free market approach always being better" to a child laborer working 18 hour days for $2.00 an hour.


And what others don't point out is the children are gladly working there for that money (unless they're slaves to their parents, but the company didn't do that). If the company wasn't out there employing them, they wouldn't be making money and they'd still be poor. Just now they are making money for their family or themselves.

Maybe if we didn't have our own damn child labor laws, I wouldn't have been stuck making a measily little $100 a month on a paper route when I was younger. I would have had no probs going to school, getting off, then working in a grocery store stocking for the next 5 hours after that. As long as it kept more money in my pocket for lollipops and bubble gum, I'd have done it.


RE: Remember
By Regs on 4/15/2008 9:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
Define how little?

We had very little once..."the market will balance itself in time"...but then something came along and smacked us back into reality. It was called the Great Depression.


RE: Remember
By afkrotch on 4/15/2008 10:07:29 AM , Rating: 3
A lot of economists blame the government intervention for the depression. A lot blame lack of government intervention.

I blame both. Blame the Federal Reserve for inflating to get Britain back to gold standard, then not intervening when banks started toppling because of their prior intervention.


RE: Remember
By masher2 (blog) on 4/15/2008 9:54:46 AM , Rating: 3
> "this is why net neutrality is a must, other wise the whole structure of the web would become dead ends as isp's buy up specific services and sites to offer exclusives...".

We haven't had net neutrality since the Internet formed, and yet this has never happened. Why not? Because any company that created such a "dead end" would hemorrhage customers fast.

The only real issue here is the limited access to choose an ISP many consumers face. That's a relic of (mostly state law-based) last-mile regulations, and it needs to be changed, without question.

> "instead of actually being able to provide the bandwidth they advertised and sold you they want to charge you extra to actually use it to it's full abilities..."

That's a false advertising issue; it has nothing to do with Net Neutrality.


RE: Remember
By spudboy23 on 4/15/2008 3:56:13 PM , Rating: 2
"hemorrhage customers" except for all those places where there's only >1< cable company or ISP, in which case you're just stuck.

that's a hell of a lot of people, they just happen to live outside of urban areas that offer more than one option.

where i live there's one cable company. period. for the entire county. AT&T gives you DSL as an option instead of cable (for Internet), but then AT&T has no problem with letting the Fed spies have access to everyone's data.


Gasp
By Xirj on 4/15/2008 12:15:32 AM , Rating: 2
This is truly infuriating. I hope he is just a CEO that doesn't know what he's talking about.

ISP should be bandwidth providers not content providers.




RE: Gasp
By KristopherKubicki (blog) on 4/15/2008 12:20:39 AM , Rating: 2
And Virgin is both :)


RE: Gasp
By InternetGeek on 4/15/2008 12:46:19 AM , Rating: 2
Nothing against they selling their content separate from their internet hosting. Unless, as usual, they want to force people to have both coming from them.

I wonder how will he explain to shareholders that people do not buy their content because people not in virgin cannot get fast enough to it?


RE: Gasp
By bigboxes on 4/15/2008 8:01:56 AM , Rating: 5
So true. It's very similar to Sony in that Sony makes not only electronics, but also sells music and movies. It's a conflict of interest in that Sony no longer makes electronics that are in the best interest of their consumers. Rather, they are always thinking about what is best for their entertainment subsideries first and the then the consumer.


RE: Gasp
By afkrotch on 4/15/2008 8:14:23 AM , Rating: 2
It's very similar to a buttload of companies. Microsoft does it. Apple does it. Intel does it. AMD does it. Nvidia does it. It's about profit and they'll do whatever they can to make that profit.


Per-pay-bandwidth?
By InternetGeek on 4/15/2008 12:10:30 AM , Rating: 2
The day my ISP says he will charge me more to get specific content I'm switching away from him. If I have no option I'm switching to his cheapest option with a reasonable speed to do the very basics of internet browsing: Shopping, Travel/Hotel booking, and Text search. I can always rent/buy a movie and not have to pay a greedy ISP for something he doesn't really have anything to do with at all. He is in charge of running the tube... not charging for the crap I send/receive through it. At the most he only needs to make sure that everyone connected to the tube get their share.

Charging people for the type of content they browse is like being charged more by Fedex for sending out a gaming laptop than the guy next to me who's sending the most basic one, provided both laptops weight the same.




RE: Per-pay-bandwidth?
By HrilL on 4/15/2008 12:55:56 AM , Rating: 2
I think you didn't quite get it. The way I understand it is you are not paying more as the consumer. They are going to charge Content providers more if they wanted their traffic to have higher priority and more bandwidth. This could mean that youtube might load quite a bit slower if google doesn't want to fork money over so their content is not throttled down.


RE: Per-pay-bandwidth?
By Alexstarfire on 4/15/2008 11:49:08 AM , Rating: 2
While that is technically true, do you think the content providers are just going to eat up the costs? OK, Google might, but I doubt anyone else will. They are just going to pass on the costs to the consumer. This would likely mean that everything will increase in price. Meaning that freeware may become payware.


RE: Per-pay-bandwidth?
By InternetGeek on 4/15/2008 1:52:55 AM , Rating: 5
One way or the other we will pay more if ISPs charge content providers for delivering their contents. This could throw out even other online stores pricing schemes, and force them to sell through the ISP.

Some ISPs have 'free zones'. Servers and addresses to which bandwidth quotas do not apply. This is done, of course, through a deal between the ISP and the content provider. For example, in my case, iiNet (http://www.iinet.com.au) does not count bandwidth used for connecting to the iTunes store (among other sites and server). In the case of Virgin a move like this would, basically, create a mini-monopoly based on geographical area because people would have to pay extra if they decide not to use Virgin's online media store to satisfy their needs.

You could extend the same situation to other areas. Take for instance what would happen if your ISP decides that Amazon should pay them extra to let you browse Amazon.com. Amazon would have to include an extra charge for this plus applicable taxes and other expenses. If I were Amazon I would display that in a beautiful 14px Arial Black Bold font so people would rant at their ISP.

If Net neutrality is taken away we might just scrap the whole internet all together. This might be good for those who think the Internet is detroying the world's economy, cultures, etc but overall it'd be worse for all of us.


cui bono
By Mike Acker on 4/15/2008 7:47:42 AM , Rating: 1
is this disturbance originating from p2p file sharers who are using the net to make illegal copies of stolen source?

at least some, I think, and i think some of the people who are doing the p2p thing want to just claim everything "on the table" is their because they can grab it

not so: their service level is in their contract

and that is what needs discussed

typical surfing tends to be in bursts, -- read a page here, link another there ... some activities however, particularly large downloads may create a steady demand for a high speed flow and that doesn't play well with the net design . such data flows must be given reduced priority so that regular traffic can continue un-affected

the issue though is that the servi8e level agreement for the connection may simply read "10mb/s". and the customer takes this as meaning "10mb/s CONTINUOUS" when the network plan did not apprehend that

The solution is for ISPs to review their pricing structure, providing, e.g "10mb/s not to exceed 10 MB per minute".

A Schedule of Service Plans would need to be made available

but for the p2p pirates to run around crying foul because ISPs are slowing up their activities, is -- rather amusing. tee hee




RE: cui bono
By Xirj on 4/15/2008 1:07:41 PM , Rating: 2
You do know that P2P is used by many legal content providers as well, right? Ex. Blizzard WoW patches, CBC shows (Canadian Broadcasting Company), Vuze, etc.


RE: cui bono
By afkrotch on 4/15/2008 1:51:22 PM , Rating: 2
Download a Linux distro and tell me how much you like torrent throttling. How about downloading content for your consoles. Netflix downloading. Amazon downloading. I download games via gamestop sometimes.

I'm not saying everything I do is completely legal, but a lot of it is. Me watching vids on youtube, listening to internet radio, using services like hula are hardly illegal.

I also know what I'm getting into also. No home user ISP is going to guarantee you a set amount of bandwith. It's always "can go up to XXXX mb/s". Just some ISP actually strive to reach those and others don't (mostly western countries).


RE: cui bono
By Alexstarfire on 4/15/2008 9:09:23 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sure the whole BitTorrent debacle was part of it, but that's not the whole picture. I think the ISPs, or at least Virgin, is starting to realize that they simply don't have the bandwidth to give to everyone and are trying to find ways not to have to upgrade the infrastructure ATM, if ever, AND to make MORE MONEY at the same time. In the end, it isn't going to help the consumer at all, unless they actually upgrade the infrastructure, which doesn't seem likely ATM, as all that's going to happen is that people will end up paying more for the same bandwidth, but have less places to go on the internet. Yes, I know they won't pay directly, but as I stated in another post, content providers aren't just going to eat up the cost. It's just going to be passed onto the consumers.

The way I see it, it basically spells the end to individually owned websites that provide content, as they won't be able to afford paying for the "premium" lines. All the big name providers will be paying for the "premium" lines leaving little, if any bandwidth for the other people. All I see is they want to split up the lines into two categories, fast and slow. I guess you could say we are all on medium right now. Anyways, so the bandwidth for the "fast" service gets priority over the "slow" one, which would make sense. However, if the "fast" service starts taking up all the bandwidth, then nothing has changed at all from the way it is right now. If bandwidth consumption only increases with the actual bandwidth remaining the same, we'll eventually end up in the exact same situation we are already in.

This would only work if they actually plan on upgrading the infrastructure, and fast. If it took them longer than a couple years, then we'll just be back to the way things are now, except that the majority of website will be inaccessable because they can't pay for the "fast" service. And even if they do use it as a stopgap measure to upgrade the infrastructure, do you think they are really just going to drop it once the upgrades are done. HELL NO. They'll be raking in tons more money. Why would they turn that away?


RE: cui bono
By Mike Acker on 4/16/2008 8:47:13 AM , Rating: 2
good comments guys,~~

there are 2 separate issues here, but the one we are talking about is Service Levels

my ISP provides me with a specific data rate at a specific price.

now where the trouble comes is in the assumptions, as usual. My ISP thinks I'm going to be using my service for "surfing" -- browsing web pages and this type of traffic is very "bursty" by nature -- as I link on a page here and then click around a bit more elsewhere.

and that type of traffic is very well suited to stat-mux type of traffic processing

but continuous data flows are another matter altogether and require different design plans

and so what wasn't stated in my service agreement with my ISP turns out to be an issue

My ISP thinks he's delivering 5mb/s browser service while perhaps I think I should be able to get 5mb/s CONTINUOUS

that is why the ISPs need to work on their Schedules of Service Levels. If I need 10mb/s CONTINUOUS I need to pay for it. If I am happy with 5mb/s BROWSER service -- that is not as much load on the net and might not cost me as much

I've read a few notes here and there where ISP's are looking at charging customers per megabyte for downloaded data but I don't like that because I don't like over-charges on my bill. I'd rather live with a line specification such as 5mb/s data rate with 5 MB max. transfered per minute or some such -- that would not affect browsing -- while I wouldn't have to pay data shop rates for my connection either.


Bolloks indeed
By Carter642 on 4/15/2008 2:27:16 AM , Rating: 2
This is rather like saying that you're allowed to use the telephone to call your granny but you have to talk really slow and loud because granny isn't paying the phone company enough to get clear calls but lucky for you your bill collectors are paying the phone company so that your calls to them are crystal clear.

Net neutrality is a good thing because it keeps your ISP from signing a no-compete contract with the rival to your favorite site. If they wanted to they could block your access to whatever addresses they want. This would be like fox blocking CNN because they own the TV provider near you. Let the network sort itself out, if your favorite site wants to provide bandwidth then they will, if not then then won't, lets not let ISP's control how the internet is structured.




RE: Bolloks indeed
By Hellburn on 4/15/2008 4:47:07 AM , Rating: 2
Actually I believe a more appropriate analogy would be that you have to phone your gran using a normal phone because she hasn't paid for the video phone service.

While net neutrality would be great, it isn't particularly practical since most networks are built on the idea of statistical multiplexing. The problem with real-time sensitive applications is that if they want to get that kind of experience, the core routers need to reserve more resources for them than they would normally.

This in turn restricts the amount of bandwidth available to other streams. As a result, the service provider can't support as many content providers and hence lose income.

As long as content providers have the option of being on the conventional network or being on the low-latency/high-bandwidth lane, then I believe that is fair. Much like your gran having the option to have a video phone (uses more bandwidth) installed rather than a conventional telephone (uses less bandwidth).

Due to the queuing and multiplexing on the routers, if there is no traffic on the "high-bandwidth/low-latency" channel, then the full bandwidth should be available for other data streams. So if no content providers, or not many, go for the better grade connection, in order to provide their client the best possible experience, then not much will change in user experience. But the sites that do use the enhanced service will definitely have a better experience.

As implied, I do have an issue with forcing providers to pay a particular bracket just because they "serve video". It's their choice and it's dependant on their application model. Apps like YouTube can stream the data in and buffer it all, so it's not too serious if it is on the lower grade channel, it'll just take a bit longer to stream in. But to force them to pay more just because they have videos is ridiculous. However, if an IPTV application wants to be viable, it needs more resources dedicated to it. That content provider would have to weigh up whether the extra cost for the better service is worthwhile to its application/business model.


RE: Bolloks indeed
By Alexstarfire on 4/15/2008 9:13:19 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, his analogy is more correct, but both of you are still wrong. It'd be like both of you having video calling, but your grandmas end skips and lags because she has lower priority than you. Even though I would think the download and upload of the video would be throttled ending in both of you getting skips and lags. The only thing would be that you would actually be getting the data and sending the data ASAP, except that your gran isn't sending the data out or recieving ASAP.


Lets cut through all the crap shall we.
By Reclaimer77 on 4/16/2008 4:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
Just ask yourself this : What benefits does this have for the end user ?

None.

Its bullox indeed.




RE: Lets cut through all the crap shall we.
By OldProgrammer on 4/16/2008 5:02:54 PM , Rating: 2
Read my post above to learn what the end user will lose if net neutrality is not protected. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean there is no benefit. Educate yourself about an issue before you make uninformed comments.


By Reclaimer77 on 4/16/2008 5:11:33 PM , Rating: 2
" Read my post above ". As if its the bible on net neutrality ? Your post is a bunch of anti-capitalist doom and gloom bullcrap about the " evil " corporations trying to squash the little guy.

Every time you leftist types start screaming the sky is falling paranoia and runs screaming to the government for more regulations, the end user gets ultimately screwed.

Oh I understand it plenty.


Hey thats my ISP!
By jadeskye on 4/15/2008 12:03:37 AM , Rating: 1
I've been a customer of virgin media for as long as the company has existed and honestly i wouldn't mind paying additional to give myself free reins.

i already pay a premium for their fastest net connection. whats a few pounds more?




RE: Hey thats my ISP!
By Flunk on 4/15/2008 12:09:36 AM , Rating: 1
I don't think you quite understand. It sounds like Virgin will be connection speeds to content providers that do not specifically pay them for faster connections to their customers. Basically, if the server you are connecting to does not pay Virgin extra, traffic between you and them will be relegated to lower priority and bandwidth restrictions. This could be a horrible precedent.


RE: Hey thats my ISP!
By jadeskye on 4/15/2008 12:14:37 AM , Rating: 2
ah you're right i totally misunderstood! it is 5:15am after all :p

Damn thats a horrible predicament. i'm already sick of being throttled every evening despite paying for 20megabit.


What's the big deal?
By MrModulator on 4/15/2008 5:17:39 AM , Rating: 2
Here in Sweden, ip-tv is used a lot(by the isp telia for example ). That is a service that you pay extra for. I can't see how they could provide it for free. I mean it takes up a lot of bandwidth.
That is just an extra service and you pay nothing more for your normal internet usage if you don't want it.

There are lots of services that requires a constant high and reliable speed. Why should they be free? If nobody wants to pay for them we wouldn't get them.

As long as it doesn't interfere with your normal internet usage consider them "extras" that's worth paying for.




RE: What's the big deal?
By afkrotch on 4/15/2008 9:40:42 AM , Rating: 2
You're mistaking IPTV service with regular video streaming content provider websites. IPTV consist of the ISP providing users with a multiple channels packaged service for a set fee. It's understandable that it would contain a fee, as the ISP has to purchase/lease a set amount of channels from each movie studio. Like Cartoon Network, HBO, Comedy Central, AXN, etc.

What we are talking about are sites like youtube, youporn, etc hosting a free site with videos. They already pay a set amount for their bandwith. The users already pay a set amount for their bandwith. What ISPs want to do is charge these website for priority service over their network and if they don't pay, both the website and it's users will suffer from bandwith throttling happening to their sites.

Can you imagine Youtube paying for bandwith, then getting charged by Virgin, Verizon, BT, NTL, Orange, T-Mobile, AT&T, NTT, Samsung, and any other ISP you can think of, for priority access over their networks.


Say what?
By MrPoletski on 4/15/2008 7:41:41 AM , Rating: 2
I am on virgin and have noticed the throttling. It's a damned PITA. Most of all because it happens SO EARLY. Download more than a gig or so and you're relegated to snail speed.

Is it so hard to provide an internet connection that never gets limited at all? so charge me more, so what, but they don't offer a service like this. I'd just think of it as another speed grade.

Am I gonna have to get my own leased line?




RE: Say what?
By Mike Acker on 4/17/2008 8:54:24 AM , Rating: 2
in a very real sense the p2p file sharers have brought this issue to the front

BROWSER service level is not suitable for a user having a requirement for a CONTINUOUS service level

p2p networks have created the need for the CONTINUOUS service level. perhaps ISPs will be able to require you to purchase a CONTINUOUS Service Level before allowing you to ruin your p2p software. That would be a very equitable solution: those of us who have no interest in p2p would not need to upgrade or pay extra while those who are creating this problem with their p2p software would be required to negotioate new service level agreements with their ISPs


This is bullocks
By Lastfreethinker on 4/15/2008 12:39:09 AM , Rating: 2
I pay for the bandwidth I use, and the websites I visit pay for the bandwidth they use. This is just greed and complete misunderstanding of how the internet functions.

"Tis better to have the world think you a fool, then to open your mouth and remove all doubt."

I wish some people actually followed that quote




I think he is confused
By bradyjames on 4/15/2008 7:37:07 AM , Rating: 2
I wonder if he understands what a bus lane actually is? Typically it is a prioity lane that ensures that a bus can get through when other road traffic is queueing. Therefore if he is offering a bus lane service when content providers don't pay that means he is actually giving a better service to providers that don't pay and an inferior non prioritised service to those that do!




By mrteddyears on 4/15/2008 3:36:17 PM , Rating: 2
Bollocks has to be the best british term you will come across that is maybe on par with "Cojones" and I am not talking about draws.




Shame
By L33tMasta on 4/15/2008 12:07:46 AM , Rating: 1
It's a shame that no one is respecting the right that we as consumers have to be treated fairly.




"If they're going to pirate somebody, we want it to be us rather than somebody else." -- Microsoft Business Group President Jeff Raikes











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