We must not let the Telco’s dictate our viewing or download privileges. After all, we live in a democracy. If we allow them control of our download privileges, we can kiss competition out the door.

Keep it simple

Mar 9th 2006
From The Economist print edition
Defenders of “net neutrality” should be careful not to harm the very thing they want to protect

TELECOMS regulation is not generally a subject that sets pulses racing. Yet as America starts to overhaul its outdated telecoms rules, the issue of “net neutrality” has done just that. Unless this principle is defended, say its proponents, the very future of the internet could be in jeopardy.

Net neutrality is the principle that network operators should give equal treatment to all the traffic on their networks. The idea has deep roots: it would seem odd, after all, if telephone companies limited whom you could call, or what you could say to them. In the digital era, net neutrality underpins the innovative culture of the internet. The network blindly delivers data packets regardless of what they contain, allowing for new applications—such as the web, or internet telephony—without requiring permission from network operators.

But now internet firms such as Google and Vonage, plus consumer and internet-advocacy groups, fear that net neutrality could be under threat from America's big telecoms firms, particularly Verizon and AT&T, which this week announced plans to buy BellSouth (see article). Both are building fibre-optic networks over which they plan new services, notably television, to compete with cable operators—themselves moving into telephony. And both firms would like to subsidise the new networks by charging big websites for premium services, such as fast or guaranteed delivery. In effect, they plan “express toll lanes” alongside the internet's existing highways.

That would be bad, say proponents of net neutrality, since some data packets—from those agreeing to pay extra—would be favoured over others. Once one music-download service paid up, its rivals would have to do the same. Internet traffic would migrate to the toll roads, enriching operators but limiting choice and innovation. Only laws forcing operators to respect net neutrality can save the internet, say campaigners.

It sounds worrying. Yet some packets are already favoured, even on today's internet. Businesses routinely pay a premium for fast, secure “tunnels” through the network. Firewalls and virus filters discriminate against suspicious traffic. Big companies already pay extra for hosting and “content delivery” services to make their websites download faster. This has not hampered innovation. And telecoms operators insist that they have no intention of blocking or slowing existing traffic.

An overly prescriptive set of net-neutrality rules could prove counterproductive. For a start, it would mean that all new network construction costs would have to be recouped from consumers alone, which could drive up prices or discourage investment. Ensuring “neutrality” could require regulators to interpose themselves in all kinds of agreements between network operators, content providers and consumers. If a network link is too slow to support a particular service, does that constitute a breach of neutrality? Strict rules could also hinder the development of new services that depend on being able to distinguish between different types of traffic, imposing a “one size fits all” architecture on the internet just as engineers are considering novel ways to improve its underlying design (see survey).

While the two positions might appear to be incompatible, there is in fact a sensible path that should suit everyone. A minimal set of rules to protect net neutrality would still leave room for operators to experiment with new premium services. Even Edward Whitacre, the boss of AT&T, says he is happy to go along with the simple rules proposed by America's telecoms regulator that forbid discrimination against particular websites or services. Blocking or interfering with existing traffic on the internet is unacceptable; but if operators want to build fast lanes alongside it, they should be allowed to.

The Economist finally presents an objective overview of "net neutrality" Mass media, especially in the US, may influence regulators to adopt of a set of regulations that kills premium QoS solutions over the public Internet...

I have to disagree. Competition and innovation are stymied by regulation, not by the telcos. It's not in the best interest of the telcos to block or degrade services to their networks (not to mention they've said very clearly that they won't.) It's regulation that we should fear, IMHO.

It's not about competition or download privileges, it's all about our liberties. Since the "Patriot Act" they are growing smaller and smaller. Don't fool yourself we're not living in a democracy anymore.
online pharmacy

It's no a simple issue since it's not about speeds and feeds. When was the last time you were able to connect to any service that maximizes your advertized broadband speed? Other than BitTorrent and some other P2P apps the answer is that you've almost never been able to maximize your connection speed since the Internet and the servers which connect to it is a shared medium.

The real issue is not about speed but how the routing elements prioritize traffic. Gaming doesn't work better at 10 meg connections, it works better when there is less jitter. When a router receives a packet in its queue it can prioritize this 'inbox' to route packets that may benefit from less jitter first. While this hasno discernable effect on Web browsing and e-mail it means the world of difference to gaming. Do we sacrifice good service on the alter of 'net neutrality'?

What about attack traffic situations like DoS attacks against a subscriber? Sorry your phone and most other services don't work, we're network neutral...

What about when a subscriber -- like most people reading this -- doesn't realise the access connection consumption ramifications of getting video download or some less innocuous service? Sure I can wait an extra couple seconds for the Web page to download (hey, I'm getting an NCAA final four video feed here!) but why can't I dial 911?

It's about traffic prioritisation. The service provider should be able to prioritize the services they know about (like the ones they provide). How are they supposed to know that the encrypted flow going to your house is actually some sensitive service? Net neutrality means advanced services suck and network environmental conditions kill the connection. The real solution is to guarantee equal opportunity to traffic prioritisation.

/Stefan
thel0r4x@hotmail.com

The Neutrality issue is anything but cut and dried. The statement: "Defenders of “net neutrality” should be careful not to harm the very thing they want to protect" is the real key to this discussion. There is an awful lot of chatter going around about how the telecoms are trying to stick it to the little guy. I think there is nothing to that. By the way, the letter signed by AARP and others referenced above is hardly an incendiary call to arms.

Still, "hear no evil, se no evil" attitude aside, the FCC responded swiftly to a complaint from Vonage, and Madison River agreed to stop blocking voice over Internet Protocol (VoIP) calls, which is a good step ahead.
-
Drug treatment saves lives.

It is hardly a call to arms indeed. The problem is that teenagers do not want to go there to die for an elusive cause.

That's interesting. Who had thought that what's happening on the internet can be translated in the real world?
________

Drug Rehab