backtop


Print 13 comment(s) - last by Yawgm0th.. on Oct 23 at 1:37 PM


Google CEO Eric Schmidt (left) and Verizon Wireless CEO Lowell McAdam (right)
Two firms agree on many basic points, but disagree on several others

Net neutrality is a very touchy subject and companies and users of the internet come down on different sides of the argument. Some feel that the internet needs to remain totally neutral and allow any type of traffic or content to be freely available. Others fee that wireless and wired connectivity providers should be able to monitor their traffic and regulate the traffic when needed.

The problem for many users is that regulation of traffic online by ISPs has historically centered on file sharing and peer-to-peer traffic which is often shown in a bad light by ISPs as used by pirates and other nefarious users. The truth is that there is a lot of perfectly legal and reasonable peer-to-peer and file sharing traffic online.

Verizon Wireless and Google CEOs Lowell McAdam and Eric Schmidt issued a joint statement on finding common ground for an open internet today. The two companies are already working together to bring new Android handsets to market so it makes a bit of sense that they would also talk about net neutrality together as well.

According to the statement, the two companies disagree quite strongly on some aspects of government policy in the net neutrality area. Specifically, a big disagreement is on whether wireless networks should even be part of the net neutrality discussion. However, both companies feel that it is imperative that the internet remain open and unrestricted to any type of content as long as that content is legal.

The statement says that the two companies understand the FCC's national plan to bring broadband to all Americans and to start a debate on the openness of the internet and how to best protect that. Verizon and Google report that they have found several common basic concepts that they agree on.

The first is that both firms believe the user should have the final say on how their web experience works. Second, the two firms say that an advanced and open network is essential to the future of the internet and policies to provide incentives for investment and innovation in the network realm are a vital part of the debate.

Thirdly, Google and Verizon believe that it makes sense for the FCC to establish broadband principals that make it clear users are in charge of all aspects of their internet experience and that these principals should be enforceable.

Fourth, the two firms report they are in "wild agreement" that flexibility in government policy is key. Fifth, the broadband network provider would have the flexibility to manage their networks to deal with traffic congestion, spam, malware, and DoS attacks and other threats that may emerge. The final common point is that transparency must be added to the FCC's guidelines.

Verizon also reports that it feels there is no evidence of a problem today, especially for wireless, and no basis for new rules and regulations that could affect providers globally. Google supports this type of regulation and this is another major disagreement between the two firms.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: They might be on to something.
By amanojaku on 10/22/2009 11:59:54 AM , Rating: 2
I really don't like the cellphone billing approach that you just described. Charging a content provider for the bandwidth used in addition to the connection costs is retarded. That's the same as me paying for a phone call that I received, when I'm already paying for the line costs. Worse, you can ignore a phone call to lower costs, but you can't ignore a legitimate request for data. I'm in favor of two concurrent models:

1) flat-rate services at a maximum bandwidth, for both consumers and content providers

2) usage-based billing, based on a minimum connection fee, that runs cheaper than the flat rates at lower utlization, but is higher at or near the same level of utilization

Let's say an ISP offers two flat-rate plans, 10Mbit/sec @ $50/month and 50Mbit/sec @ $100/month. Usage-based plans could include a flat-rate connection charge + a usage charge that is a percentage of the flat-rate plan at that speed.

At 10Mbit/sec that usage could be $10 (connection charge)+$50 ($50*100%)= $60, while 5Mbit/sec would be $10+$25 ($50*50%) = $35. The point at which flat-rate becomes desirable is 80% utilization.

Bandwidth between 10Mbit and 50Mbit could be $25+($100*n%), resulting in a price range of $26-$125. The point at which flat-rate becomes desirable is 75% utilization.

At higher speeds there would be more of a push for flat rate. It doesn't make sense for you to get a 1Gbit/sec connection if you're only going to use 5Mbit/sec on average. It costs the ISP a deal of money for faster ports, which is covered by the connection fee. Higher speeds require more bandwidth reservations, which is expensive when not in use. The goal would be to make flat-rate desirable for high average utilization as that is easier to plan for resources. That's MY idea, anyway.


"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer

Related Articles













botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki