Computerworld has a pretty good summary of the Net Neutrality issues today:
In a May 17 letter to congressional leaders, 35 manufacturers — including Alcatel, Cisco, Corning,and Qualcomm — said there’s no evidence that broadband providers now block or impair competing content. The Internet doesn’t need the burden of new regulations, the letter said, adding that passing a bill risks “hobbling the rapidly developing new technologies and business models of the Internet with rigid, potentially stultifying rules.”
The network equipment vendors are the closest thing we have to an informed and neutral party in this debate, so their opinion should carry a lot of weight.
Richard: “The network equipment vendors are the closest thing we have to an informed and neutral party in this debate”
Good one, Richard. Keep huffing on that glue.
Cisco has been pitching AT&T, Verizon and the rest to kill Net Neutrality for ages. When it comes to erecting new toll-ways on the Internet, whom do you think profits from building the “booths?”
Have you read these reports?
“When it comes to erecting new toll-ways on the Internet, whom do you think profits from building the “booths?””
Who said anything about toll booths? Oh you mean that thing we use to optimize delay for sensitive traffic like VoIP called enhanced QoS? Who’s making anyone buy it? Does your fear justify outlawing the sale of QoS?
Hi Richard, I agree with you (and the hardware manufacturers) on this. We do need to keep all technological and business options on the table. Making these subject to legislation is likely to foreclose a lot of consumer choice.
But, the hardware manufacturers are not neutral. They stand to be suppliers of the infrastructure for the next wave of the net. Enforced neutrality would require them to keep their products dumb and undifferentiated. I don’t mind that they are self-interested…econ 101.
The net neuts need to get over the idea that the Internet is owned by the public. It’s not. It exists as a set of agreements between private parties, and this has worked extremely well so far.
“But, the hardware manufacturers are not neutral. They stand to be suppliers of the infrastructure for the next wave of the net. Enforced neutrality would require them to keep their products dumb and undifferentiated.”
All the current gear supports enhanced QoS now so you don’t need additional hardware. Markey or Snowe-Dorgan would outlaw that.
It seems to me kathy c has the goods on these demonic network equipment vendors: they’ve been caught red-handed, engaging in self-interested capitalism in plain sight of the people. Have they no shame?
But back here in the 21st century, Cisco benefits if the Internet grows, and they don’t if it doesn’t. If there really was such a thing as net neutrality, and if killing it were bad for Internet growth, it’s hard to see Cisco’s shareholders being in favor of their position. Cisco has made a major commitment to VoIP and they know damn well it needs QoS to work correctly.
I’m afraid the comrades at democraticmedia.org have lost the big picture, yet again.
Here’s a quote from Verizon EVP Tom Tauke speaking at a conference yesterday:
“For example, online video gaming is a growing business, and consumers of those sites expect a seamless experience for their role-playing and action games. Let’s say a gaming company has a game that requires 24 megabits of capacity. Consumers may be paying for Internet access speeds anywhere from, say, five megabits to 15 megabits. That company could enter into a commercial agreement with Verizon to provide online gamers the megabit burst they require for a quality experience.”
Who makes the hardware that will allow Verizon to enter into “commercial agreements … to provide … megabit bursts”?
“Who makes the hardware that will allow Verizon to enter into “commercial agreements … to provide … megabit bursts”?”
Is that such a bad thing? It simply sound like a temporary bandwidth increase. Why pay for a 24 Mbps when you only need 10 Mbps most of the time? Does the post office require you to pay for a 10 lb package every time you want to send a letter instead of a package?
Based on my understanding, the Snowe and Markey amendments would be fine with variable bandwidth (if the customer paid for it).
I actually meant that as a serious technical question. Who makes hardware that can allow these megabit bursts? Is it technically feasible? How does this megabit-bursts model fit into the whole QOS/prioritization discussion?
On the issue of whether or not it is a good thing, my short opinion is that it is probably not a good thing. I have a lot longer explanation of how I get to that conclusion over at my blog.
When it comes to erecting new toll-ways on the Internet, whom do you think profits from building the “booths?”
Toll-ways on the Internet? The last time I checked the Internet was a toll-way. Let’s face it Kathy – you (or someone else) is paying for your Internet service.
Since the Internet is a “toll-way,” what is the effect of opening new “booths” on a toll-way? Toll-ways with fewer booths cannot charge people precisely for their usage. For example, if you are on a toll-way that has booths every 50 miles, they will charge you assuming that you will drive (or have driven) 50 miles (even if you only want to drive one mile). Obviously, that is unfair and inefficient – adding more booths will prevent you from paying for more than you use.
Interestingly, the Neutralists’ popular and pejorative “toll-way” analogy actually seems to weaken their case.
Tom,
This is not a QOS or prioritization issue – it is a bandwith issue. I don’t think an ISP would have a hard time throttling your bandwidth up and down. Many ISPs use the same modems for all their levels of service. They set your speed on their end.
Again, the Markey and Snowe amendments don’t ban selling different bandwidths.
How could Cisco kill something that they know doesn’t actually exist?
Want to see the rules that the Internet runs on? Read this and tell me who’s sniffing glue.
MnZ says:
“Again, the Markey and Snowe amendments don’t ban selling different bandwidths”
You’re right. Markey and Snowe permit the sale of different levels of bandwidth. But the DO NOT permit the sale of enhanced QoS which would kill a critical component of a good network.
Most “carrier class” Data networking equipment has this functionality. It allows ISPs to better utilize their available bandwidth to handle customer needs.
For example, I have a 10Mbps connection to network $foo, but when I need to mirror my Mulit gigabyte Oracle database once a day for disaster recovery purposes I can burst to 100Mbps. I only pay for the 10, plus some extra (usually based on 95th Percentile billing) for any bandwidth over that I use for a period of time. This works out well in oversubscription eonomics because you obviously can’t sell dedicated 100Mbps connection to 15 customers when all you have is a gigabit uplink to your provider core.
How could Cisco kill something that they know doesn’t actually exist?
Want to see the rules that the Internet runs on? Read this and tell me who’s sniffing glue.
BCP index
These democraticmedia.org reports reflect the paranoid ranting of technical no nothings:
This one is just rich:
Learn how your ISP will know “who” you are, “what” you are doing, and “where” you reside.
Gee, why would they want to do that? Maybe it has something to do with knowing where to send the bill? It’s not like the Internet extensively uses encryption, anyone with a modicum of clue could find out all that information pretty quickly. If you run Windows, someone probably already has.
These reports aren’t shocking to anyone who understands networking technology. They are simply marketing yak or whitepapers reflecting the wishes of the operators to build boxes that are more capable of managing the network so it runs smoothly and doesn’t melt down ala 1980’s MCI Garden of the Gods era Internet. It also needs to deliver what customers are expecting of it: PSTN quality voice and CATV quality Video in addition to conventional data traffic like email and HTTP.
Network Security and Stability are absolutely vital to a functioning Internet. Without the ability to track traffic at a very granular level, you can’t meet those goals. This means that they will most definitely need to identify who you are and what you are doing.
Definitely a good read. I don’t think many of the people understand that if Telcos limit the connection to the internet, they are stifling themselves. Some one else would be driven to take up the slack and provide people with what they want. Then that particular party would begin to grow and take over sections of the network that Telcos would have been abusing. This is ofcourse if such abuses were to occurr. This is basic economics that even I without a single college level econ class can understand.
The concept of a Monopoly even exists that would keep prices reasonable to prevent some other party from entering into the market and taking the market back. Colusion works in the same manner.
I honestly think most of these pro net neutrality individuals could use a economics class or two.
“I don’t think many of the people understand that if Telcos limit the connection to the internet, they are stifling themselves. Some one else would be driven to take up the slack and provide people with what they want”
What’s up Nucrash! Fancy meeting you here :).
This is almost always true if there are two true competitors in the market. Judging by the commercials the DSL companies run against the cable companies and vice versa, I would say that qualifies for true competitors.
However just to make sure no one blocks any services, we’ve got an FCC that’s demonstrated a willingness to slap blocking down and we’ve got new laws that reinforce this and increase the penalties for violators.