Slashdot Mirror
The Future of the Internet
bariswheel writes "An important piece written by a Columbia Law professor addresses sensitive questions about the future of the Internet: "Is it a problem if the gatekeepers (i.e. a duopoly of the local phone and cable companies) discriminate between favored and disfavored uses of the Internet? How would you take it if AT&T makes it slower and harder to reach Gmail and quicker and easier to reach Yahoo! mail? What if I-95 announced an exclusive deal with General Motors to provide a special "rush-hour" lane for GM cars only? Is there something special about "carriers" and infrastructure--roads, canals, electric grids, trains, the Internet--that mandates special treatment? Should content providers like Google, or subscribers like us, pay for the bandwidth consumed?" Here's hoping that sites like Google Techtalks and Channel 9 remain 'free' and available for the next 10 years."
Is that the tension over US control causes a splintering of the internet. So that you would have to do something weird if you were in the US and wanted to use the "French internet". It would be like the old days, when you had to be on bitnet to send mail to someone on bitnet.
I think it might be quite problematic to offer different speeds for different services with some other countries that don't follow the same logic. Also, it might be that "throttled" content providers move across the borders and demand, as "international traffic", equal treatment.
I could see some quite interesting lawsuits coming down that throttled road.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
I'm not sure if similar actions are widespread in the US yet, but up here, Canadian ISPs already discriminate based on content. Ports used by popuplar P2P software is throttled to the point where throughput is almost choked off completely. Many Rogers subscribers have found a way to "hack" their torrent bandwidth back to normal, at least temporarily, by using the same port Rogers is using for their new VOIP service.
Resistance seems futile, as no ISP wants their users using P2P apps. What can we do? We used to threaten to cancel our services with providers guilty of bandwidth throttling, but now they all do it, so what options are left, besides simply accepting that this is how the future of the Internet will be? Normal access to "preferred" sites that make the ISP money, and discouraged (throttled) access to sites and services that cost the ISP money. It sucks. I'm open to suggestions.
Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
The money that Yahoo could pay to throttle Google's web traffic is miniscule compared to Cox making $85.00 a month per family in their service area.
ISP's make money while content companies have largely failed to live up to their Bubble-ish expectations.
Google only makes 7-8 billion in revenue, and the amount that could be diverted to potential bandwidth-throttling is not that much compared to the money ISP's generate from maintaining existing customers.
Other content sites aren't nearly as successful as Google, and would have even less leverage to engage in these anticompetitive practices.
"If you think you have things under control, you're not going fast enough." --Mario Andretti
I think a 'tiered' internet is trouble from the start, but what about this scenerio: Your VOIP provider starts providing 911 service, and your 911 call gets squashed by your neighbor's video download. Under strict 'net neutrality', it is possible for this to happen, if unlikely.
Additionaly, the ability of backbone providers to influence the delivery of packets is quite limited in comparison to the 'last mile' provider. The ISP customers immediately connect to, if they choose to set QOS for some type of service from some content provider, will have a great deal more effect on download/upload speeds that backbone providers. That's just how QOS out at the edge works. Yes, backbone providers can influence packet delivery, but not nearly as much as edge providers.
The other problem with allowing provider to prioritize traffic is that once packets traverse provider boundries, all bets are off. Does anyone really think that Verizon/MCI/UUNet will treat AT&T's prioritized packets better or even on par with its own? After all, Verizon's own customers, like maybe giant-company-xyz, is paying to have their traffic prioritized, and all Verizon might have with AT&T is an aggreement that might not be worth as much as $$ from giant-company-xyz. If AT&T never sees all the router configs in Verizon's network, how can they claim that Verizon isn't honoring their QOS?
The internet is more like an ocean than it is a bunch of lakes and canals, and the telcos want to sell good weather and smooth sailing. AT&T will sell Disney, for example, a 'higher tier' of service for their streaming video on their backbone, but unless they can get each and every edge provider to go along, and each and every other entity that runs any kind of peering link at all on the Internet, it won't make as big a difference as they claim. My point is that even if telcos sell prioritization, its likely it won't stack up like they claim, due to the nature of the Internet itself. Then everybody will have to decide how to treat legitimate priority traffic, like 911 for example.
The entire debate looks to me as though it being framed in a misleading way.
"We are all geniuses when we dream"
- E.M. Cioran
I was a Rogers customer for a long time and dupmed them when they started implementing restrictions. I am now with a small local DSL provider and everything works again and the speed is fine.
Meh.
That would assume that "consumers" actually had a choice, but as we all know, competition is a misnomer. With acquisitions and mergers, the number of carriers continues to shrink. And while you might think you can get whatever phone company you want wherever you are, think again. My folks in North Carolina have one carrier available: Sprint. They can't switch phone companies. They use calling cards for long distance, so they don't have to pay Sprint's outrageous fees or deal with their crappy customer service.
Think cable's a good alternative? Bah! I have to use Optimuj Online through Cablevision, because I can't get Comcast (not that I really want to). There's no competition -- in my area its Cablevision or satellite, take your pick.
If you think the Bells and or cable giants stand to lose by restricting service or charging more to some comapnies than others, think again. The customer doesn't have much of a choice in most cases.
GetOuttaMySpace - The Anti-Social Network
There is a big difference between the roads (regulated by the State) and the information avenues (so far not really regulated all that much): one would be paternalism (a subsidized company: GM and a regulated road), one would be preferentialism.
For me, I don't see a problem with ISPs who give preferential treatment to traffic -- just as your grocery store gets paid for better shelf placement by hundreds of product manufacturers, I think the same should be true for any free market good. In the long run, the market will decide what it favors -- balanced traffic or privately subsidized traffic. As long as the government stays out of the decision and lets the market decide, I think it will work out just fine.
The big problem is where government is already sticking their nose in my business, such as where certain providers get monopoly status (within the village or the state). In this case, there is cause for concern, but that is already the problem with government regulation: it tends to create monopolies out of preferred enterprises and really hurts the competitive market. I'm already starting a village debate over getting rid of the Comcast franchise fee (which gets dropped into hands of my local government). In just 10 weeks I have about 60% of the village angry that they're paying US$4 a month to the village so Comcast can have a monopoly over cable services. We're lucky to have not 2 but 6 different broadband providers in our tiny village of 3000 people, so it isn't a huge concern, but US$48 a year is still a lot to pay so a monopoly can have access.
For those of you with villages that monopolize just one ISP, you need to do what I've done: tell your neighbors and everyone around you that the village needs to stop. There is no reason for monopolized communications anymore, and dumping the monopoly will give you much more choice. The entire state of Illinois is being harmed by the telephone unions who are harping about the idea of opening up the entire market to competition by many ISPs. This is where we have to be really scared, not if one company gives preferential treatment over the data streams.
If there is open competition for ISPs, you will get a choice of service. Maybe it is possible that one big ISP can give preferential bandwidth for a fee to someone, and this will bring your utility costs down. For some, this is a big benefit. I'd rather pay more for equal service, but it should not be mandated by law or by "right." For now, you're using their line, and if you complain that your tax dollars paid for the line to be installed, you should see already that the fault is with the monopolizing effect of telecom regulation, not with the competitive marketplace.
I do believe we'll see a bifurcated Internet of varying ISPS offering varying levels of service for varying prices. This is good, this is how competition figures out what the consumer wants and needs at what price. It also allows the market to change at whim, depending again on what users want and need. Maybe some people want to pay per kilobyte, maybe some people want their bandwidth to their preferred sites subsidized by the sites, who knows? Let the market decide.
is that gradually the internet will become TV. ISPs already provide massively asymmetric connection with far higher down than up speeds. The EULAs already prohibit you from serving content - eventually someone'll start enforcing that. They'll start refusing to relay traffic that might expose them to liability, such as p2p networks and usenet.
I also predict a return to BBS-like behavior based on wireless mesh networks, but that's another post.
If this comes to pass, you all owe me a dollar.
there is no need to sign your posts. this isn't usenet. your username is right there above your post. stop it.
Why does everyone that states your comment say "Google is obviously paying for their bandwith. They're getting it from.... someone,"? Nobody seems to actually know where Google et al.'s bandwith is comming from.
Perhaps that's part of it.
"There are more important things than stopping terrorism. Upholding the Constitution is one of them." - Ars Forumer.
The problem is that they are NOT opening up a faster lane and charging money to use it. They are artificially slowing down all the other lanes, and charging special rates to access the orriginal speeds.
AOL customers sign up for AOL and get the Internet as a side benefit. People connect to ISPs and ISPs connect to other ISPs specifically to have connectivity to whole Internet.
As a matter of fact, AOL was around as Quantum(tm) back when the Internet was Arpanet, and didn't allow ordinary companies to connect.
The phone companies and cable companies make exclusive deals with localities in order to bring wires into your house. Since they tend to have been granted government monopolies, they are more regulated as utilities vs. companies like AOL.
Network latency is a big issue. If AT&T were to put big video servers directly on their backbone such that no one was more than one hop away, they'd be able to offer better service to AT&T customers than anyone else. The article touches on this, saying that that would be ok, but to intentionally slow down someone's packets simply because they haven't paid your protection money is not. I.e. It's possible throught network design to have the same effect as throttling, without actually causing problems.
All ideas^H^H^H^H^Hprocesses in this post are Patent Pending. (as well as the process of patenting all postings)
diogenes had no need for etorrents and idonkies when he masturbated in the marketplace.
They're shooting themselves in the foot by blocking P2P - without it, I'd get basic 512k DSL, with it I'm going for the premium 12 megabit plan and they get bigger profits.
Of course, I appreciate that their ideal user is one who gets the premium plan and never uses it... but they do OK financially and get some good will by meeting the customer half-way, don't they?
This issue must be raised in every town hall across the country where the telecoms are applying for new video over IP cable TV franchises.
If a telecom has applied for a franchise in your town the do this:
Show up at the local council meeting and ask your local government to ask the telecoms what their position is on keeping the internet a level playing field?
This issue needs to work from the local governments up; not from the federal level down. The telecom's money is useless at the local level.
Raising the question of Net Neutrality at the local level will, at the very least, set precedent that this question belongs on the table. Think of what will happen if some small town actually stands up and says: We will not grant you permission to operate a cable TV franchise in our town because we don't like your future plans for the internet.
You need to get involved locally to push this issue forward.
Please see what I am doing in my town, Red Bank NJ, to see how raising these questions can help. Please visit my simple blog at: http://www.redbanktv.org/
-- Tom
Common carrier status, in the telco world, affords some protections to carriers regarding the use of their networks. Carriers can not be held responsible for the content that crosses their networks, but in exchange, they must carry each other's content.
Law makers should allow carriers to decide if they want to be "net neutral". After all, businesses don't like to be told what to do, so let businesses decide.
Lawmakers should offer a choice to carriers:
1. Claim common carrier status, and carry all traffic equally.
2. Refuse common carrier status, carry any traffic you like, in any manner you choose, - but be held responsible for all illegal traffic and use of the network.
You can't have it both ways. You can't pick and choose the data that crosses your network, but claim you know nothing about the data.
-ted
I'm a content provider, albeit a small one (www.McHenryAreaChess.org if you're into chess, but please don't slashdot my server otherwise). I pay my hosting company for the server space and the bandwidth I use or may use. The people who use my site pay their hosting ISP for the bandwidth they consume or may consume in getting to me. If my popularity grows beyond the agreed upon limits, I have to pay for a bigger pipe. Fair enough. Those resources cost money, and I'll pay for the services provided.
But my small site can't afford to pay premium rates because some poker site wants to monopolize the gaming activity that goes over the internet. It's not just an issue about bandwidth, it's an issue about tying in content to fair and equal access. Like someone said, how would you feel if there were high speed lanes on the highway, but only for GM cars? How about if your access to highways were restricted because you also own a Honda? How about if your Verizon phone connection with a friend on SBC was intentionally made noisier than calls to other Verizon customers. Sure, you as an adult have a legal right to look at porno online, but should an intermediate link be allowed to throttle transmissions to 16 bits per minute? How about if your access to news is specially filtered because you voted democrat in a primary? These are the content based issues that will destroy the internet and our personal freedom of speech.
In theory, there's no difference between theory and practice. In practice, there is.
"What if... The biggest ISP decided to partner with a lot of content providers and limit that content to their customers only? I think it would be called AOL and people would jump ship and go to smaller ISPs.
"Doesn't the same apply here?"
-- missing000
What if, in a few years, a few giant ISPs are the only ones left for 99% of USians to choose from, and they all discriminate by content, protocol, and application? Then where will people "jump ship" to? How will we even get news or viewpoints that don't conform to the commercial interests of the few big ISPs?
Very slowly, I think, if at all.