A network such as the one run by your ISP treats all types of traffic the same way. One type (whether a specific protocol such as VoIP or content from a specific provider such as Microsoft or e-mail from specific addresses) doesn't get priority over any other type. The worry is that ISPs such as your cable company or phone company and services such as AOL can use technology called Quality of Service (QoS) to give some of the data that passes over their networks priority. Corporate networks have been doing this for years. Packets generated by mission-critical applications can be given preference over less important traffic.
This could be a money-maker for service providers because they can strike deals with content providers to ensure that those content providers' data gets delivered more quickly than that of other content providers who don't pay the fees for this priority attention. For example, Verizon could contract with Google to give their search services priority over Yahoo's or MSN's search. This would make Google more attractive than its competitors to those who use Verizon as their ISP, because it would be faster. In addition, the money that Verizon got from Google could be used to keep their prices for Internet service lower than those of an ISP that doesn't engage in such contracts.What does it mean to you as an ISP customer and user of the Internet? If ISPs are allowed to make discriminatory deals, at the extreme they could actually block the Web sites that compete with their partners. That is, in our example of Verizon making a deal with Google, they could prevent Verizon customers from accessing the Yahoo or MSN search sites. This is not what any ISP is proposing to do at this time, but it's certainly technologically possible.
So, the question is whether federal government ought to regulate the infrastructure owned and operated by the telecom companies in order to prevent them from selectively controlling the flow of content over their "wires." On the surface it appears to be obvious...of course they should. However, as content providers start to deliver high quality video over the internet, bandwidth demands suggest that other content will be backed up in the traffic jam of digital bits. As we become more and more dependent on our internet-connected-computers to deliver both information and entertainment, something has to give. The federal government doesn't have a great track record when it comes to implementing policies designed to ensure equality. Often these regulations have the exact opposite effect. What it is likely to do is reduce the incentive to deploy greater bandwidth. And if the telecom companies don't have a financial incentive to install fiber optic lines to the home (and in so doing, increase bandwidth exponentially), we'll be stuck with computers that are only good for text, images, and music...with TVs and DVD players providing the moving images. What do you think? Can we have HDTV on our computers and at the same time have universally available service?
Posts
3 comments:
We've always had net neutrality. It's been part of the infrastructure of the Internet. In fact, it is one of the very tenent of the Internet.
As an Internet entrepreneur, I know that no matter what happens, I'll have the ability to make sure my content is seen by my target market. But what about the individual? If net neutrality isn't included in future legislation, your average Joe won't have a chance to be found... his content will load extremely slow, or not be indexed at all.
NO ONE should have control over the ebb and flow of content on the Internet. It's a basic premise of the medium. This concept MUST be instilled in every piece of legislation relating to the Internet, and current content about this topic should be released by local University.
Ah, the old regulation to create equality debate. As Dr. Ebersole points out, the federal government has a poor track record in this area, often creating more unintended consequences than solutions. I am an advocate of a laissez faire approach, after all this is a business issue right? After all the ideals about the Internet are placed aside, it only exists because its profitable. Your average Joe doesn't have anymore right to net neutrality or Internet access than he does to newspapers, radio or television. If he can afford it he's welcome to it. I believe that Internet providers will provide what consumers want. If they don't, someone else soon will. This is the built in self-correcting mechanism of all commerce. If access becomes too restrictive or slow, consumers will seek out other service providers.
Ah, the old regulation to create equality debate. As Dr. Ebersole points out, the federal government has a poor track record in this area, often creating more unintended consequences than solutions. I am an advocate of a laissez faire approach, after all this is a business issue right? After all the ideals about the Internet are placed aside, it only exists because its profitable. Your average Joe doesn't have anymore right to net neutrality or Internet access than he does to newspapers, radio or television. If he can afford it he's welcome to it. I believe that Internet providers will provide what consumers want. If they don't, someone else soon will. This is the built in self-correcting mechanism of all commerce. If access becomes too restrictive or slow, consumers will seek out other service providers.
Truett Scofield
Post a Comment