(Page 2 of 2)
A tiered network would need to discriminate between such differing types of content. It would have to identify the person requesting or providing a service, and verify that they had paid to use the ISP's "fast lanes." It would also have to recognize what types of online applications a user wants to run and what types of content they've requested -- whether e-mail, video or photo downloads, streaming music, or a voice-over-Internet phone call. Furthermore, it would have to instantly switch each type of traffic to the appropriate pathway, reserving the fastest routes for data such as voice calls that must arrive on time. And, finally, it would have to track usage, charging the consumer or the provider (or both) accordingly.
Cisco, whose networking equipment is used by many ISPs, is working on an "intelligent networking" system designed to handle all of these tasks. In essence, its system wraps extra information around traditional Internet Protocol packets, identifying not just where packets are going, but who is using them and what they contain. Cisco hopes to sell equipment and software compatible with its "Service Exchange Framework" to both ISPs and providers of Internet applications and content.
So what would be the practical impact of such decidedly non-neutral capabilities? The first, of course, would be higher connection fees for the Web companies such as eBay, Yahoo, and Google -- the Internet's biggest users. The second, on the consumer end, would be that a tiered Internet would provide noticeably faster connections to the Web pages and information products of companies paying extra for their portion of the "pipes." For instance, if Google paid its ISPs to route data over the quickest path, consumers would likely be able to download video files from Google Video Store faster than from rivals such as YouTube -- unless YouTube ponied up, too. And the added cost of fast delivery would likely be passed on to the consumer, of course, in the form of higher prices or subscription fees.
Not surprisingly, then, many of the Internet's original architects are opposed to upsetting the current system of equal access, precisely because the full benefits of the global network would be diverted to those who can pay. "The Internet was designed with no gatekeepers over new content or services," wrote Google's Vint Cerf in a letter to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. Cerf was a recipient of the Presidential Medal of Freedom last November for his role in inventing the TCP/IP protocol underlying the Internet. "The remarkable social impact and economic success of the Internet is in many ways directly attributable to [these] architectural characteristics," he says.
Guest (Sir Lanse)
Article misses point - iTunes Tax
The reason for this is the ISPs want a piece of the iTunes pie.
Google, Yahoo etc wont be hurt until more of their content is video. The ISPs see iTunes content being worth a lot per packet. They are looking for ways to get some of that money. The rest of the arguments are smokesceens and additional ramblings. If the toll roads are allowed, how much construction will continue on slow roads?
Who says it will be only 2 tiers?
It could become many many tiered.
What about intermediate wire providers? Will it matter how far away the site is?
Guest (Couldb)
So, if the ISPs have a log of who sent what to whom, and what the content was-----then what? These days we might be justified in being paranoid! Besides cynical about the ISPs and big$
Guest (David S. Isenberg)
The article creates a dangerous mistaken impression when it says, "this tradition of "network neutrality" has never had the force of law. Now a movement is afoot in Congress to codify this egalitarian idea. . . "
In fact, the idea of Network Neutrality has its roots in the concept of "Common Carriage," which dates back to the beginning of the telegraph system. Recent events (the 2003 FCC Triennial Order, the Supreme Court's Brand X decision, the 2005 FCC DSL Order and others) have effectively repealed the laws enforcing network neutrality. Today a minority in Congress is trying to RESTORE the force of law to network neutrality. It is not new at all.
Guest (HOTI3)
I think the government needs to stay away from our internet. The Internet has thrived as a decentralized means of communication. Until now the Internet has been built on a series of relationships between thousands and thousands of network providers big and small. Net-neutrality threatens by attempting to legislate Interconnection
Guest (PLaw)
The way I see it, the ISPs want to essentially defraud their customers by delivering less than what is paid for. To wit, I pay my ISP to "deliver the internet" as quickly (and reliably) as possible given the service level that I've signed up for. To then turn around and charge companies for not delaying the delivery of their content is merely reselling the very same service that I've already paid for.
If the subscriber has paid for 4M/sec, then it seems patently fraudulent to deliberately throttle the delivery of content from those companies that have paid for the "fast lane" delivery. At minimum, the subscriber should be charged less (i.e. deductions against the subscription fee) for content that's been slowed.
Guest (Jim Hayes)
Running video on an IP network makes about as much sense as running Etherent on an ATM network - an idea tried and abandoned 15 years ago. When is someone going to offer an efficient solution to delivering video on our fiber backbones without trying to force a square peg into a round hole?
Guest (Akinboni akinola)
Very good observation! Thought it has something to do with short term memory or a way to create hype for investors.
Guest (Menoch)
Like I said, keep your round/square holes (and the Druids who force them) off the peoples' internet. Let the free market decide by the people choosing or not choosing the internet's future. Anything else is 1984! So, how many fingers am I holding up, Golodh?
Manufacturing in the United States is in trouble. That's bad news not just for the country's economy but for the future of innovation.
On Twitter
Become a Fan on Facebook
Subscribe to the Feed
Guest (LinuxUser)
BlackMaiL
Sounds like blackmail, if you ask me.If you do not pay up then little or no access to your site. People already pay by choosing paying for dsl vs. dailup vs. T1 line.
Reply
Guest (MEnoch)
Toll Road pr Free Market?
Are the Status Quo-ers merely anti-Innovation Clintonistas demanding Big Brother intervention of Capitalism? Let the Free market choose how business evolves.
Reply
Guest (Golodh)
Net neutrality is in the public interest
It was only a matter of time before someone would say: "Let the market sort it all out".
Only the market only optimises what's priced, nothing else. The issue here is the type of internet we get, and that's subject to a different market. The kind of market where our votes and our opinions are currency to be precise.
Reply
Guest (Runover)
Free market
How free is the market when controlled by a few monied interests? Voting with your dollars will barely give you a squeak, much less a say in an oligarchy.
Reply
Guest (Joe)
Toll Road Chosen By Congress
Ludicrous. It's not a free market when lobbyists write the rules.
Reply
Guest (lux et libertas)
Service Providers Seek Regulation, Not Free Markets
If free markets were the issue, then service providers wouldn't be lobbying congress for regulation. Their activities are the exact opposite of promoting free markets. There is no shortage of network capacity. If it becomes an issue in the future from increased demand, price, or supply will necessarily increase. I don't think anyone argues the internet does not serve as a public good. This issue isn't about markets, it's about attempted monopolism & control, taking a resource that allows low barriers to market entry for innovators, and attempting to force economies of scale. The innovators, and markets, are the ultimate losers.
Reply