Open access to the Internet isn't affected if the capacity provided to users is determined by the capacity they pay for.
In the early days of the Internet's development and deployment, most residential users accessed the network through dialup modems. While the speeds were modest, the Internet access service was highly competitive. At one time, there were as many as 8,000 dialup Internet service providers. In today's terms, high-speed Internet access is far less competitive, with only one or two providers available to any residential user.
As Larry Roberts points out in his blog, applications on the Internet have become more diverse. It is quite common for laptop or desktop users to have many connections operating at one time: several instant messaging windows, open Web pages, a streaming video, a video chat, an email window, and perhaps an interactive game. Some of the peer-to-peer (P2P) applications open multiple connections to achieve faster results, as Roberts indicates.
Several of the broadband Internet access providers have tried to respond to demand that has exceeded their statistical overbooking by shutting down P2P traffic and, in some cases, using fairly blunt methods to do so. That has led to a good deal of noisy debate and accusation.
I think Roberts has the right idea that capacity provided to users should be determined by the capacity they pay for. If I purchase a 10-Mbit/s service, I should be able to transmit data at that rate; and if my demand exceeds that capacity, the system should shape my traffic so it does not exceed the capacity for which I have contracted.
Essentially, this assures users of a fixed price for their access and assures providers that demand will be moderated to conform to the capacity purchased.
There are some suggestions that pricing should be based on total bytes transferred without regard to bit rate. I disagree with this idea. I believe such a policy would be a serious mistake. For one thing, it produces great uncertainty in the monthly cost of service. Consumers are less likely to try new services if there is uncertain cost. New product and service development would be suppressed for lack of market, and innovation would diminish.
The limiting factor is, and should be, data rate.
Having paid for access to a given capacity (i.e., data rate) to reach the Internet, users should be free to use it as they wish, within the limits of the purchased capacity. Interference with the freedom to reach any network destination and to use any network protocol is unacceptable.
This does not mean that Internet access providers should be prohibited from protecting users and the network from denial-of-service attacks. On the other hand, filtering viruses and worms from email, for example, should be a distinct application service and should only be engaged if the access user also contracts for this kind of service from the access provider.
Internet application services can be separated. Users should not be forced to purchase value-added services from the same party that provides access to the Internet. This separation is important to promote competition on a broad scale.
— Vinton G. Cerf, Vice President and Chief Internet Evangelist, Google
the thing that is missed in data rate specifications is whether the rate is continuous or peak. these kinds of ratings have to be considered on many types of equipment and i don't see any reason we should think the internet is any different.
if i buy 5 mbs service for browsing that is one thing: i only need a burst of data here and there, most of the time my connection is idle and others can make use of the channel. but if I want CONTINUOUS data flow that is a horse of another color.
the obvious thing to do is to set a maximum transfer limit in frames per unit of time as well as the rate. for example, for browsing i might like a 5 mb/sec line with a limit of (e.g.) 5m packets in any 15 min period. I've been on for an hour this morning, browsing, and have needed to receive 4,636 packets so far. But I've been drinking coffee, reading the baseball scores and talking to the wife.
My personal feeling is those needing CONTINUOUS rated data service will need to lease private connections; they will not be allowed on the community system cables.
But that Bell split didn't last enough. It was proven that small companies can't make it by themselves, the investments needed are great as well as the worldwide competition.
Not even a company with 52 million users can make it. Sprint/Nextel reported a loss of almost $30 billion and with no light at the end of the tunnel, but maybe WiMax overtakes the market at a surprising rate (and that's a very BIG maybe).
Much as I hate the idea of paying more for more bandwidth, I certainly see the rationale here. However I suggest that the level of performance I pay for should be the minimum level, not a fixed capacity. If at a given moment there is more network available, why not use it? The specified access rate should apply only when the network is busy.
I'm probably the type of user who would 'shoot crap' by paying for a lower level of performance in the hope that, most of the time, I would actually receive the higher level. But this model would self-adjust quite nicely to demand, and those willing to pay more could have the higher level guaranteed.
Quite frankly, I don't know why the Cable TV company wants to be the phone company, nor do I understand why the phone company wants to light up my idiot box. Neither decision seems to go with the inherent capabilities of those types of companies. But they're certainly allowed to choose to do these things.
With that in mind, one political solution I've often heard suggested is the forced separation between transit and content. This solution assumes an inherent conflict of interest between being in the business of delivering video entertainment (Cable TV) and owning the very transit lines that would link people to competitors.
That forced breakup idea makes my Libertarian rash break out all over. It seems like a shift in the Bell Breakup magnitude. But my own experience tells me that we can't count on network operators to behave themselves when their loyalties are split between allowing users to access the content, services, and destinations that they want and locking them in to xtuple-play packages and "monetizing" their surfing behavior.
I don't see any ISP following this business model. They are seeing how their revenues are diminishing because offering the access is not where the money is, but in the applications and services.
Just like baseball games, selling the ticket but then letting anyone sell food, drink, souvenirs and whatever they can come up with, would cut a huge chunk of their revenues.
Both solutions (bits or flow control) have some flaws, with bits: what will happen with retransmitted bits (because of congestion)? and with flow, it's very hard to guarantee certain amount, because no network is planned to handle the peak traffic.
What would it take to get Comcast, Cox, the former Bells, to change their models? I know they tell us we're getting 1.5 down and .5 up or whatever, but how big a change is it technically and business-wise? Are the changes at the ISP level only? Or throughout the "plumbing?"
I'm not too keen on the idea of buying a set amount of service because I never know ahead of time what I'm going to use. I prefer the model of the gas or electric service where I pay for what I actually use, and the company provides that detail every month. Right now, I have no idea how much bandwith I use, or will need. We do need a new model, but it needs to be transparent.
The ThinkerNet does not reflect the views of TechWeb. The ThinkerNet is an informal means of communication to members and visitors of the Internet Evolution site. Individual authors are chosen by Internet Evolution to blog. Neither Internet Evolution nor TechWeb assume responsibility for comments, claims, or opinions made by authors and ThinkerNet bloggers. They are no substitute for your own research and should not be relied upon for trading or any other purpose.
Midsize businesses rarely achieve the same standards of security in their own datacenters as professional providers that specialize in delivering these services to organizations.
It was about 10 years ago when a new generation of software-as-a-service (SaaS) alternatives started to gain acceptance and adoption among organizations of all sizes. And it has only been about five years since Amazon Web Services captured the marketplace's attention with Amazon EC2 and Amazon S3, which opened the door to a vast array of infrastructure-as-a-service (IaaS) offerings. Now, the third piece of the cloud computing puzzle is beginning to win over organizations seeking to build their own apps: platform-as-a-service (PaaS).
Energy consumption is a primary contributor to global warming. At the end of 2012, 40 percent of energy consumption in the US came from commercial and residential buildings.
Big-data and analytics tools enable marketers to understand customers as individuals, identifying unmet needs and addressing each customer as a "segment of one," says John Kennedy, VP corporate marketing, IBM.
New York's Metropolitan Transit Authority is conducting a pilot test of digital kiosks to guide subway users to where they want to go more efficiently and at lower cost.
The whole Amazon.reader debate is a double-stupid. It's stupid to think that there's any e-book buyer who doesn't know Amazon's URL, and it was stupider to let ICANN launch the whole free-form TLD initiative to start with.
While NFC's original goal was to enhance mobile commerce applications, it is finding its way into a number of other uses, which is creating both opportunity as well as challenges for IT departments.
Enterprises would like to move to cloud computing but are hesitant because they are concerned about providers’ ability to secure company data. Here are some tips that help to ensure that if breaches occur, the business is not left holding the bag.
Edmunds separates customers into segments based on the info it collects on its site and from partners, and uses that to push out custom content, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
The IBM Smarter Commerce Global Summit in Monaco kicked into high gear today, and we've already begun to see news emerging from that lovely city-state by the sea.
Expert Integrated Systems: Changing the Experience & Economics of IT In this e-book, we take an in-depth look at these expert integrated systems -- what they are, how they work, and how they have the potential to help CIOs achieve dramatic savings while restoring IT's role as business innovator. READ THIS eBOOK
your weekly update of news, analysis, and
opinion from Internet Evolution - FREE! REGISTER HERE
Wanted! Site Moderators Internet Evolution is looking for a handful of readers to help moderate the message boards on our site – as well as engaging in high-IQ conversation with the industry mavens on our thinkerNet blogosphere. The job comes with various perks, bags of kudos, and GIANT bragging rights. Interested?
To save this item to your list of favorite Internet Evolution content so you can find it later in your Profile page, click the "Save It" button next to the item.
Email This
