Important question about tiered internet

I really do not think this issue is about technology nor is it about capacity nor is it about service....

I think the true sticking point about all this is pride.

No one wants to feel insulted or slighted or left-out which could happen if their traffic was de-prioritized. If, and when, it actually occurs the emotional 'tort' against someone will be 'why do you, Mr. Telecom, feel that my email messages are not as important as the last episode of "Will and Grace"?'. It will be a matter of pride, not the inconsequential fact that your email arrived 1/4th of a second later than it could have.

Here is a simple test. Imagine yourself the recipient of de-prioritized traffic. How does that make you feel? Do you feel insulted more than you feel cheated or robbed?

And if you do feel cheated or robbed, then why would you have that feeling when the vast majority of the time you will experience increased speed with a tiered internet with infrequent and negligible experiences when your traffic happened to conflict with some big-honking transmission?

It has nothing to do with pride. It has to do with companies shrouding their anticompetitive practices in the cloak of customer service and a free market. It's double speak.

The telcos are pushing this because they want to get into the content business and strictly control the marketplace on networking.

If they weren't planning to deliver, they wouldn't be publicly campaigning for this. This isn't even about greed, but cheating. They complain about government while receiving government favors, they complain about a free ride from Google while making tons of money off them, they complain about needing a free market while attempting to close the market off to their competitors.

It's laughable to hear the Telcos complain about these things with a straight face. They have some good arguments in their corner but they go way beyond them into destructive practices that deliver hobbled technology and service.

When I was employed by a telco I had tangential involvement on projects where the intent was to deliver VoIP and VoD.

That is what makes the US a great nation. Limited barriers to competition.

So, the content providers (example, Time Warner) got into the business of telecom delivery (example, Road Runner). So why is it wrong or unfair for the telcos to get into content?

Again, you overstate. It isn't about 'closing off' competition. It is about paying for what you receive.... leveling the playing field so that telcos can compete with content providers (as the content providers already entered the field of the telcos). Which it is good that the content providers entered the field of the telcos because, yes, the local telcos had a monopoly and there needed to be an increase in competition.

But you have to let the same knife cut both directions.

As an engineer, and a Kiwi I tried to stay out of this. But here's why Net Neutrality is an issue

If you start a band and you have good content fame is totally based on who you sign with. The distributor will promote, distribute and get you air time based on hat they need right now. For years bands have had to toe record label lines to get their stuff out there, as they had the only pipe.

Tv was the same, Cable companies and TV broadcasters used to get "promotional investments" from show producers (Read Big bag of cash) to put a new show to air.. why the controlled the pipe.

Now roll out the Net. Podcasting, Vidcasters IPTV, Net Radio ... the choice is huge and anyone can be a content provider (unless Itunes won't let you add a podcast due to your country) and promote your own material. but if the pipe wont let your content play as well as other content then we go back to the old days of dominant players controlling the content.

When you pay for a net connection you have a realistic expectation that any content you the user wish to get will be given to you with respect. but if they give priority to other users and as such you are left out in the cold because your content provider wont/cant pay extra to get the same level of service you will be the loser.

DO you expect that it would be ok if you went into a store and they had a line for PS3 customers with 20 reps willing to serve them, but Xbox customers had to stand in a second line with one staff member who would only serve you after she finished painting her nails. You would change stores right ??? But if every store was the same ....

The Internet was designed to be a system for open sharing with all uses getting the same service limited only by the pipe size. Priority for anyone means that content creation will again be limited ... Unless a PBS service is started for everyone other than a main studio, Paid for by tax dollars to deliver what no-one wants and a line a mile long waiting to put your content on the net

Say goodbye to a lot of user content if this ever goes ahead.

In NZ its about the upload/download speeds. I can get a Cd overnight, its 3-5 days to post one. (read linux distro) content creators don't always have tons of money to throw at hone companies.

But its that same thing, are we all destined to be just content consumers, or are we going to be able to be content providers if we try hard enough

Only a neutral net gives us a level playing field

Of course no one wants to stand in the long line with only one clerk.

But that is a distortion of the current situation.

Ever gone to a theme-park with a flume ride? Here is a better analogy....

Everyone in the city 'pays for access' to water and gets their water through a small pipe. No matter how long you run the tap you always pay the same amount. Water is a utility.

Now comes an idea to build the theme park with the flume ride. You want to experience that big rush of water for yourself? Sure thing! $0.50 for each ride, please. Oh, you don't want to pay extra? OK, then go back home and pull out the 'slip and slide' and wet it down with all the water you want from the pipe you pay a fixed amount for.

We keep forgetting that what the telcos want to charge extra for is capacity that cannot be delivered yet. But it is capacity that will be needed to deliver streaming VoD without glitches and hiccups. No one is going to experience a reduction in capacity.... its just that you won't get the big-honkin' capacity unless you need it.

And the best indicator there is in a free market of your need is your ability to pay.

Unless you are going to get into the business of streaming video 24 hrs a day your analogy is off the mark.

If no one who is willing to pay for using the waterslide is currently using it then, yes, you can use it for free (as long as your water bill at home is paid up).

You just have to give priority to those who are willing to pay.

Unless the water slide chooses to refill and so your taps are turned off until they have refilled everything

After all they have priority over you

Without a tiered internet, if your neighbor starts watching Mutual of Omaha's Wild Kingdom in High Def and there is no lower tier (with its guaranteed minimum amount of capacity) then it will be just like that.

How many of us have been in the shower and someone flushes the toilet?

We get burnt.

That is because the toilet saps all the cold water pressure.

So we need the internet with it's current capacity defined as the 'lower tier' and establish that existing capacity as a 'guaranteed minimum'. Then we build on top of that an 'upper tier' which suppliers pay extra for (in order to pay for the build out).

That way streaming 24 hr HDTV can be supplied over the internet as well as the BOL pod cast.

From the news desk of C|Net itself:

http://news.com.com/Beware+of+broadband+speed+overkill+-+page+2/2100-1034_3-6073081-2.html?tag=st.num

''...the biggest driver for super-fast broadband connections will likely come from high-definition video. Depending on the compression technology used, one high-definition stream on one TV eats up between 10Mbps and 20Mbps of bandwidth. Standard definition broadcasts use between 2Mbps and 6Mbps per channel, depending on the compression technology used.

''AT&T, which is upgrading its network to offer IPTV (Internet Protocol TV) service, will need to offer consumers a minimum of 20 Mbps into the home, said Laszlo. Cable operators and Verizon, which will also offer HDTV, have built their networks so their high-speed Internet service is separate from the capacity that delivers TV. But as more content providers like Walt Disney's ABC offer programming directly over the Internet, consumers will need faster connections to handle the streams.''

Now, just who is gonna pay for all this capacity build-out? Shouldn't it be those who use it?

Instead of all of us, regardless if we use it or not?

''Net Neutrality'' just isn't fair to the guy who just surfs the web and doesn't use streaming HDTV.

...in that article. Innovation is a wonderful thing. I'm sure content providers could go a long way to provide the rich and exuberant internet experience we have today with much less bandwith. Especially if they were forced to innovate, find more efficient ways to do everything they do now. But as long as people buy more bandwith than they chew up just navigating from site to site, content providers can just create websites that chew up as much as they need to.

Bandwith-saving innovations are going to come from several fronts. I know next to nothing about the specifics of the current state of technology right now. But as long as people are watching those jittery TV shows on Winamp, and as long as scientists are inventing a printer to make a liver, we will never cease to be surprised by what comes at us from around the next corner.

Maybe instead of having legislation that guarantees ''Net Neutrality'' we merely have to promise content providers that they won't get less absolute bandwith than they've ever had before. No one promised them a certain percentage of whatever new bandwith becomes available.

So if we can triple bandwith capabilities in three years, then we only guarantee to the content companies that they will not be hindered from continuing to provide the experience they provide now. If they to improve the internet experience they provide, they have a few choices:

1) make their own innovations that increase the apparent abilities of the current bandwith; for example, shorten download buffer times for a video clip using better technology on their end

2) lay their own cable

3) pay the pipeline for access to more bandwith

If the content companies really wanted the benefits of the profit potential of a superior pipeline they had every opportunity to do what the telcos did. But they didn't. So why should the telcos owe them anything?

So, we now realize that huge HUGE amounts of bandwidth will (soon) be place on your door-step.

But a pipe is only as capable as it's weakest link!

So.... who is going to pay for the build out of the backbone that will support that large amount of bandwidth everyone is getting (or will be getting) at their door-step?

And THAT is the sticking point of 'net neutrality' ... it provides no economic incentives to do the mind-boggling build-out of the transport between the local areas that is going to be needed to truly supply uninterrupted streaming HDTV to millions of people.

You always pay for what you get, and you (tend) to get what you pay for.....

So, who should pay for the backbone build-out? Everyone? That is unfair. Government? People decry too much government support of the telcos now and government is always the most inefficient means to accomplish anything. Those who use it? YES! That is what is fair!

How do we charge those who use it? Simple, allow per-use charges from the content provider.

OK, so how will that money go to build out the backbone where it is needed? Simple, allow the telcos to charge the content providers for the 'upper tier'.

It really is the 'most fair' way to get the job done.