Technology Review - Published By MIT
Advertisement

Net Neutrality: Far from a Done Deal

Continued from page 2

By Wade Roush

Friday, January 19, 2007

smaller text tool iconmedium text tool iconlarger text tool icon

"We have increasingly big interests in this country today, cable and phone companies and others, who want to be gatekeepers and have toll charges on the Internet," Dorgan said in a videotaped statement about the bill. "They'd like to say to content providers, 'If you want to go on the information superhighway you're going to have to pay us extra money.' That is, in my judgment, dangerous, because somewhere out in this country, there are a couple of people, a couple of college students in a dorm room, perhaps, who have a great idea, the next new thing, and the only way they are going to take that innovation out onto the Internet is if there is someone out there [who] is not discriminating against the new businesses, the little businesses."

The Dorgan-Snowe bill--cosponsored by Senators Hilary Rodham Clinton (D-New York), Barack Obama (D-Illinois), and John Kerry (D-Massachusetts)--now awaits consideration by the Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation. No comparable bill has yet surfaced in the House of Representatives, but House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman John Dingell (D-MI) told reporters this week that net-neutrality legislation would be a "high priority" of the House in 2007. Any such legislation, however, seems likely to stir renewed opposition from the telecommunications lobby.

The single biggest future barrier for advocates of strict network neutrality could be simple technological change. The Internet's newest killer apps--digital video, Voice over IP, and online gaming--chew up much more of the ISPs' available bandwidth than previous generations of applications did. Video is the biggest bandwidth hog, and it isn't just coming from commercial sites like iTunes and YouTube. It's also generated by consumers, who are exchanging unprecedented amounts of video and other data over peer-to-peer file-sharing networks such as BitTorrent but are still paying flat monthly access fees.

Networking researchers say it's unrealistic to expect ISPs to transport all this extra data for free. "The guys who move these huge amounts of data around have to be compensated somehow," says Hui Zhang, a Columbia University computer scientist who heads a startup, Rinera Networks, that's focused on giving ISPs more control over the data flowing through their networks. "This whole discussion about net neutrality is going to have to lead to another discussion about usage-based charging."

Comments

  • TOLL FEES
    The whole world has evolved in a magical way - ( except those damned porno feaks ! ) because of the internet and if it had been controlled by big Telecom this would not have happened, high charges would have created just another exclusive club and all the innovators stomped on !! This is such a MAJOR world knowledge enabling system it would be criminal to let the big boys control it - STOMP ON THEM I SAY !!!!
    Rate this comment: 12345

    VCRAGAIN
    01/19/2007
    Posts:35
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
  • You Can't Make a Scarce Resource Free
    Pure net neutrality is simply insane, for two closely related reasons:

    1) Eventually, bandwidth will become scarce, not only on the edge of the network but in the core as well.  Right now you've got tier 1 ISPs swimming in dark fiber, which can be captialized into real core bandwidth for a fraction of its sunk cost.  This won't last forever.

    2) Realtime traffic (voice and video telephony, data conferencing, surveillance, telemetry, etc.) is fundamentally different from non-realtime traffic (email, podcasts, HTML, etc.) and simply cannot work without differentiated services.  You need the ability to classify and expedite traffic to meet the time constraints for applications like this or they are completely useless.

    The idea that a bunch of politicians are going to legislate the economic value of diffserv just gives me the creeps.  You can make a law that pi is now equal to 3.0, but you'll wind up with funny circles if you follow that law.

    It's certainly legitimate to ensure that all content providers and all consumers get equal access to those differentiated services, so Google can't put some guy in his garage out of business.  But if the guy in his garage wants to pump out realtime video, he probably ought to pay more than his neighbor, who's downloading the latest podcast of "Lost" overnight.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    theradicalmo...
    01/19/2007
    Posts:13
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: You Can't Make a Scarce Resource Free
      Your 2 is wrong - it's not abour realtime vs non-realtime.  This is about the ISP charging depending on the source of the packet.  Example - since he has a deal with Yahoo, he charges Google to give the same access.  Example - the Internet is a toll road.  What the vendors want to do is charge companies (websites) for getting off on your off-ramp.  Even more, they want to charge Google more to get their 18 wheeler off at your ramp than Yahoo.  Net Neutrality is about all 18 wheelers getting charged the same.

      Rate this comment: 12345

      jsmith
      01/19/2007
      Posts:1
      • Re: You Can't Make a Scarce Resource Free
        We're in violent agreement, I think--see my last paragraph.  As long as everybody gets equal access (either as a provider or a consumer), it seems like we have the makings of a fair system.

        However, there are **lots** of proposals out there that effectively outlaw charging for different classes of service.  Enacting such a proposal would be disastrous.
        Rate this comment: 12345

        theradicalmo...
        01/19/2007
        Posts:13
        Avg Rating:
        4/5
  • So, charge by the bit!
    There's nothing to say you can't charge by the bit for transporting those bits on your wires. Nor is there anything wrong with peak-load pricing, like the electric utilities now do. In this sense, ergs are a lot like bits.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ms
    01/19/2007
    Posts:126
    Avg Rating:
    4/5
    • Re: So, charge by the bit!
      Charging by the bit isn't good enough.  Best-effort, non-time-critical bits are not the same as guaranteed-delivery, time-critical bits.

      Also, the OAM&P systems required to charge by the bit are a nightmare.  There's a reason why ISPs can roll out new services faster than old-style public switched telephony providers.  When you meter your service, things get really complicated to deploy.  Flat rates are good for everybody, even if they're tiered by class of service.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      theradicalmo...
      01/19/2007
      Posts:13
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
    • Re: So, charge by the bit! - opens the door for abuse
      If you charge by the bit, then this opens the door for abuse. There will be 'bit-fraud' or 'bit-inflation', similar to how click-fraud is already done on the internet.

      If I put up a JPEG image or PDF document on the net, and I have some financial incentive to inflate the bits, then I can do that easily without providing real value for the users. Extra bits don't always add up to extra content for the users, and this inherent weakness in the system would be exploited.
      Rate this comment: 12345

      gabrielg01
      01/20/2007
      Posts:396
      Avg Rating:
      3/5
  • Broadband pipes
    If I'm to provide real time video and/or phone services to tens of thousands of people I'll need a high speed connection, probably a T3 or multiple T3 or even OC type of connection.
    It is my belief that large companies such as Google and Vonage do pay for such high speed access.
    Well, if you are selling such high speed access, it is to be expected that it would be utilize 100%, so then you can't really complain, if your core is blogged down.
    T3 prices run between &5000 and $15000. Companies that pay for such access in my opinion do not have to pay any payments for "priority" treatment. It is the ISP's fault if they are over selling their core capacity. They ought to install more capacity, and/or raise the price of the T3 lines.
    Which will never happen given the growing competitiveness in the field. Cable and phone companies and soon utility companies (power line Internet) are crowding the field, delivering lower prices for everyone.
    I can see why ISPs are trying to push this thing, but I'm absolutely sure it will never work.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    ventsyv
    01/20/2007
    Posts:5
    • Re: Broadband pipes
      You're confusing bitrate and quality of service.  You can have incredibly high bitrates and still not be able to meet the realtime requirements of an application.  (An old networking joke:  Q:  What's the highest bitrate technology?  A:  A 747 full of DVDs...)

      In order to get realtime stuff delivered, you have to be able to guarantee that a steady flow of packets arrive within a regular time interval.  For voice, this time interval is usually one packet every 20 ms.  For video, it's often multiple packets every 33 ms. 

      Furthermore, the flow has to be end-to-end.  So, to take your Google example, they may have multiple OC3's flowing into some tier 1 ISP, but that ISP still has to absorb that load and route it through their network, hop-by-hop.  Each router may be congested, requiring special queuing to meet the demands of the realtime traffic.  That special queuing reduces the aggregate bandwidth that the router can handle, requiring more routers, more links between routers, etc.  And the problem gets even worse when you hit the edge of the consumer's network. 

      Result:  more cost to the ISP, who needs to recoup the investment. 
      Rate this comment: 12345

      theradicalmo...
      01/20/2007
      Posts:13
      Avg Rating:
      4/5
  • Bandwidth is not scarce
    I think the need for bandwidth will max out at some point. Suppose every person is connected to the net 24/7 at broadband speeds, then you can calculate the total information the net needs to deliver. Beyond that we don't need to go, because people won't be able to process more information than that.

    Instead of wasting the money on the Iraq war, we should build our internet infrastructure.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    gabrielg01
    01/20/2007
    Posts:396
    Avg Rating:
    3/5
  • $50
    So what the ISPs are saying is that fifty dollars a month isn't enough money to cover a constant 5mbt service only 5mbts in bursts? that doesn't make any sense. If it pays for the network and speed now, adjusting for inflation and future technology investment, then it should pay for it flat out. Communications corporations are just that, corporations, and they are duty bound to make the best profit possible. It is in the hands of the consumers (and legislators) to fight for a fair price because At&t or Comcast are working their hardest to sway it in their favor.
    Rate this comment: 12345

    kalocin73
    01/21/2007
    Posts:1
  • Where will bandwidth shaping play into this?
    Wouldn't that allow users to do more with what they already have? We had a problem with bandwidth congestion at work and decided to try to solve the problem ourselves rather than pay a higher price to our ISP. There are plenty of products out there (we used Netequalizer) that allow companies to make more with what they have just by prioritizing the applications that require the internet. I know it's not the cure all for this issue, but wouldn't that be a way around paying more for increased access?
    Rate this comment: 12345

    davelax40
    02/01/2007
    Posts:1

Log In

Forgot your password?     Register »
Advertisement

Videos

Laser-Triggered Chemical Reactions
Featured Content
Sponsored by:
White Papers

Twelve ways to reduce costs with SQL Server 2008
Find out how to reduce costs and get more efficient

Download

Total Economic Impact of SQL Server 2008 Upgrade
Forrester reports on increasing productivity and management capabilities

Download 

Achieving Cost and Resource Savings with UC
How Office Communications Server R2 and Exchange Server can make your business smarter and more efficient

Download 

The Compelling Case for Conferencing
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

How Windows Server 2008 R2 Helps Optimize IT and Save you Money
Read how you can improve workload support and find IT efficiencies

Download

Windows Server 2008 R2 Hyper-V Live Migration
See how Windows Server 2008 R2 and Hyper-V enable virtualization and Live Migration

Download
Advertisement
Subscribe to Technology Review's daily e-mail update. Enter your e-mail address

TECHNOLOGY RESOURCES
Advertisement
MIT Massachusetts Institute of Technology © 2009 Technology Review. All Rights Reserved.