why tiered internet service hot with service providers

Who pays for the build-out of high-bandwidth and low-latency infrastructure when streaming HD-VoD comes?

Or will we just choke off that advancement in technology?

Or will we have no 'guardrails' to protect (what otherwise would be) the 'lower tier' and give you drastic slowdowns when your neighbors try out streaming HD-VoD?

Interesting twist there, KeyStroke. Everyone's been focused on legislating "Net Neutrality" as a way to prevent service providers and high-paying customers from dominating the internet. Supposedly, a tiered internet would interfere with the "little guys" on both ends of the network - both creating and consuming content.

Supposedly the higher tiers would only threaten those unable to access the higher tiers. And after all, a large part of the appeal of the internet is its empowerment of people who would never otherwise have a voice. Its the anarchy, the pure democracy, etc ad infinitum that makes the 'net so special and a higher tier would just turn the whole thing into another Clear Channel-opoly.

In my own mind, I've been focused on the desire to have a level of guarantee-of-stream if I want to get into new capabilities like HD VoD, voip, etc. But maybe we should be thinking of being guaranteed a minimal level of stream at any service level. Maybe that guardrail between the tiers would do more to protect the little guy than the supposedly 'neutral' "Net Neutrality" solutions.

Here's an interesting quandry. Sorry if this is poorly explained, if anyone's interested in better details I can find the info. Either way, the point of the antecdote has merit.

There's a city that has recently adopted new technology in its tv cable that increases apparent bandwith, by actually improving the way data is sent, and not by improving the capability of the wire itself. Up until this time, the local laws and/or contracts required the national broadcasters to guarantee the local affiliates a certain amount of brodcast capability.

With the new developments, the service providers say that they are not required to upgrade the absolute capability that local affiliates have always had. That is, the local affiliates are guaranteed "X" amount of bandwidth, regardless of how much the pipeline grows.

The local affiliates contend that they are owed a certain percentage of whatever capabilities become available. So if, in the past, they were given 10% of the available bandwidth, then in the future when bandwidth increases they still get 10%. Now these local affiliates know full well that even keeping the same bandwidth they've always had will give them increased capability, and they're making plans on how to use it. They admit to defending their right to grow their content delivery by riding on the coattails of the growing pipeline, and not just defending their right to keep delivering exactly what they've been doing so far.

I guess it would all depend on how things were written, and I'm sure it will lead to lengthy court battles and end up with some compromise.

In the end, the result will be the same so why fight it. A small number of guys with *** loads of money will get their way over billions of individuals who all have a few bucks each. Those billions of people probably have much more money than the few rich guys but they'll never coordinate as effectively as the few rich guys with connections in Washington.

If that's going to be the end result anyways, lets just get there as quickly, cheaply and painlessly as possible. And lets try to guarantee minimal rights for the little guy along the way.

This is the very reason why I am so nervous about tiered internet service. What exactly is stopping the telcos from encroaching on the bandwidth of the lower paying customers? Do people really think that the telcos will build high-speed infrastructure to support the higher tiers out of the goodness of their hearts? Who's to stop them from simply making the lower tiers' bandwidth slower and slower to accommodate the upper tiers?

If there was a guarantee that my speed would never get any slower, then I personally have no problem with tiered internet.


-Terry

As I described in (yet) another thread regarding this topic (why do people feel the need to create yet another thread on this self-same topic when there are already [what?] three or four of them?) ....

It will become in the best interest of the local access provider to secure (what those of us who are, or have been, in the industry call) a 'Service Level Agreement' with the backbone providers. If they don't then their customers will begin to experience slowdowns or near-outages when the bandwidth-hogging 'upper tier' traffic starts to encroach on the lower, and if that happens then their customers will switch to a competitor.

This will (likely) take the form of guaranteeing the existing capacity of the 'net as the minimum for (what will then be called) the 'lower tier'. Your fears are well-founded but what you do not seem to realize is that the way to prevent your fears from being realized is to implement a tiered internet.

The providers of 'upper tier' content will then also have an incentive to establish SLAs for their traffic.

So, with SLAs (contracts) in place to guarantee the quality of the lower tier (at the capacity the 'net now has), different contracts to establish the quality of the upper tier, and with the the influx of capital to finance the build-out of an upper tier, the telcos have every incentive to build out the upper tier and no incentive to short-change the lower.

In short: free trade, capitalism, and property rights is what will bring about advancement in technology for those who wish it, and preservation of existing capability for those who want that.

The Tiered Internet is a way to provide for 'everybody wins' (in that everyone gets what they are willing to pay for). It is not an evil scheme (unless your philosophy is such that you think making a profit while advancing technology is the definition of 'evil').

Just as you said, this is my biggest fear about the whole tiered internet structure. I haven't seen nor heard of any kind of SLA about guaranteed bandwidth for the lower tiers, and until I do, I'm very wary and anxious about it.

So, word to the telcos ... Get the guarantees out that my bandwidth will not be diminished in capacity, and I will have no problems with your proposed tier structure.


-Terry

What I just cannot grasp is why the advocates of (what is called) 'net neutrality' think that it will provide them any protection from capacity-hogging traffic.

The way it stands now, anyone can use as much of the capacity of the internet that their connection and architecture allows.

"Net Neutrality" is what would allow someone transmitting streaming HD VoD to suck up all the capacity leaving everyone else out in the cold.

What people say they want (no one forcing them to the sidelines) and what they advocate ('net neutrality') are the opposite.

I just do not understand why people do not see that.

... that the telcos would be the ones to suck up all the bandwidth, and leaving the smaller content provider companies out in the cold. That is my fear of what would happen. But if the telcos instituted the guaranteed bandwidth for lower tiers at the current levels, then things would be hunky-dory by me.


-Terry

I agree that is what people are afraid of....

And it is 'net neutrality' that would enable it to happen.

To stop it from happening we need to create a 'lower tier' that has a guaranteed minimum (but no maximum) capacity. As soon as we create that 'lower tier' then we (by definition) also create the feasability of the 'upper tier'.

So, what we all want is (what we call) the 'tiered internet', which is the opposite of 'net neutrality'.

If the government is able to put 'net neutrality' into law then what would (likely) happen is that (things like) streaming HD VoD will just choke off. We may have to wait ten or twenty years for people to realize that is the result.

One thing I did learn working at a telco is that they are patient. They will wait. If we are scared enough of change that we put 'net neutrality' into law then they will just wait for technology to advance enough that everyone will start to demand what only a 'tiered internet' can provide.

If that happens, it will be a shame.

...and let loose the dogs of war!"

Let's do this.