Anything that has a fixed level of capacity is vulnerable to too much demand. What do we do when the Internet is crowded?
Last summer, Comcast Corp. (Nasdaq: CMCSA, CMCSK) offered its own arbitrary (and inexpertly administered) solution, by slowing down customer use of BitTorrent and other peer-to-peer applications. When the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) denounced this approach, Comcast said it was testing a program to slow down customers using the most bandwidth, regardless of their purposes or the programs they used, when the system neared congestion.
Is Comcast’s the best solution? Not by a long shot. The best solution is to let users determine what speed and reliability are worth to them. Different Websites will value speed differently, and for different reasons. An online stock trader or a health clinic with real-time patient monitors will think every increment of speed and reliability is worth it. A new competitor to Google (Nasdaq: GOOG) might value speed highly in order to compete with the incumbent by being faster. Some sites are simply going to be willing to buy the right to priority for their site’s traffic when the Internet gets crowded.
Proponents of “Net neutrality” oppose this vision of a competitive Internet. They argue that the Internet would lose its open and vibrant nature if this were allowed. But it’s hard to see how. For example, some people send their mail by priority overnight, some send it by second-day delivery, and some with a regular stamp, but all the mail gets through. And some businesses have 24/7 live customer service lines, some have them only during office hours, and some respond to email the next day. Businesses decide what that level of service is worth and act accordingly… and so, too, do customers.
Why should the Internet be any different? Neutrality proponents point to the Internet’s epochal character and its potential to bring together all of humanity in a new and profound way. No one argues with that. But the singularity of the Internet doesn’t tell us what to do to use it in a way that does the most good for the greatest number.
And when the Net gets congested, the best answer probably isn’t the one neutrality proponents favor: everybody being slow together (even though that’s at least “neutral”). Besides, that’s not what happens now anyway. The big sites -- Google, eBay Inc. (Nasdaq: EBAY), and so on -- already have big speed advantages due to more and better equipment (including caching) that smaller guys can’t get.
That’s why they’re the money behind neutrality -- because neutrality preserves their advantages.
The FCC has yet to approve the principle that some Websites can buy faster or more reliable service from Internet providers. In its September ruling that Comcast endangered the “free and open nature of the Internet” by slowing down customer use of BitTorrent, the agency suggested that it might not approve the use of rules to manage congestion, either. That is because companies need to employ techniques such as deep packet inspection in order to apply rules in a non-discriminatory and transparent manner. But those techniques are not acceptable to the FCC.
So where does the FCC leave us? One option is to let the market sort it out – i.e., a competitive Internet. Neutrality advocates don’t like that. Another is to allow broadband providers the ability to implement rules (when needed, and transparently, to be sure) to manage congested periods. But neutrality advocates don’t like that solution, either.
That leaves the third option: letting everyone tough it out and share the misery. This is the same option that gives us highway traffic that doesn’t move, airplanes that sit on tarmacs, and brown-outs during the summer heat. To some advocates, this may be in keeping with how they construe the egalitarian character of the Internet. But for users, it’s a blueprint for an Internet that cannot sink but will not swim.
— Ev Ehrlich consults on economic matters to a broad range of organizations in the financial, accounting, pharmaceutical, technology, professional sports, and other industries.
jw, et.al.,: In a Free market System (which we are supposed to be) the simple resolution to poor customer service is to simply take your business elsewhere
the trouble with cable operators today is that, in any given area there is probably only one cable operator
and so you deal with the cable operator, disconnect, or get DSL and DishNet.
DSL isn't available everywhere and so when you kick out the cable operator and there is no DSL you are back to dail-up,-- and that is just not an acceptable solution
I recently went through an essentially parallel conumdrum with my POTS service. I had traditional POTS service for years. when I got tired of all the tack-on charges attaced to my monthly phone bill I checked with my ISP. My ISP was only too happy to take over as service provider for my POTS line and to give me a clear plain invoice with one charge, --same every month.
so the Free Market concept worked for me: I was able to "take my business elsewhere". but this was only possible as a result of the MCI lawsuit against the Bell operating companies that forced the Bell operating companies to lease lines to alternate Service providers
no such action has been taken against the cable services. but if we prefer to use the free market system for improving products and services then such action should be taken
this would mean that ComCast et.al. would be required to lease the use of its cable network to other providers -- who would most likely be happy to provide better service in order to get your business
the other method of improving service is government regulation: endless arguments with the FCC and the Corporations
one final note that I think is very important in this thread: when you lease a car you are not allowed to do anything you want with it; you must comply with your lease agreement. the same is true of cable service: you cannot do anything you want; you must abide the terms of the Acceptable Use Policy ( AUP ).
So you're saying don't get mad at Comcast for building the tallest building west of Chicago and short changing its customers...or urr, since I hadn't had Comcast in over a year, I don't know how mediocre their service and/or slow to move they are now. Here is a Comcast Complaints site.
Comcast com 19,900,000 results
Comcast contact 9,920,000 results
Comcast complaints 1,140,000 results
The above Google results might not say much HOWEVER the fact that Comcast doesn't address the TOP result pages complaints at least in a marketing campaign manner, says they really don't care much or are too BIG to say I'm sorry to its individual customers.
I guess being a behemoth of a Comany and having customers love you is in opposition to business management 101?
the Terms of Service in the Acceptable use Policy are based on what the ISP anticipates you are going to use the service for
clearly the potential aggregate data transmission is higher for a server than for a typical desk top client that is used for web browsing, e/mail, system maintenance and such
the "oops, didn't think of that" in the ISP pricing originates from the assumptions that were used to derive the service model
well guess what: there going to be some re-thinking needed as clearly not everyone who signes up for broadband/internet has the same plan in mind
now in terms of what ma bell did with pots lines, they were only trying to protect THEIR equipment from rogue devices, and their service staff from trouble calls not of their making.
eventually they settled the matter by providing support to the DMARK ONLY; all premise wire and equipment became the responsibility of the owner.
it remains to be seen how this will all wash out for broadband service. in the end, I'm paying for the service termination and access. but, like un-limited long distance vis measured service there will be various service levels available at various prices.
Do the terms and service differ these days from ILECs and CLECs? Or are the CLECs able to provide more flexibility to its customers? I'm assuming if not, CLECs are doomed from start these days.
In re my "ISP's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) says that I am not to set up a home server..." is reminiscent of the old Ma Bell days when they attempted to control (i.e., prohibit) wireless devices, answering machines, amplifiers attached to their precious network -- anything other than a PBX or a rotary dial black phone.
I understand why an ISP would want/do this. Clearly there are bandwidth constraints and chokepoints between POPs and between POPs and desktops. We're awash in tiered service proposals; it's high time government and industry knuckled down and picked one. I wished this article had been more prescriptive on that front.
Mike you bring up a very valid point. The metrics are all askew and provide service providers with the dilema that they are currently in. As I look at my options I see that on certain broad band ISP providers they have different upload speeds as compared to the download speeds. Perhaps there is an opportunity to meter the size of the package being uploaded or downloaded and regulate the bandwidth allocation based on that. The introduction of streaming video and streaming audio have put an additional strain on what is becoming a crowded environment. Couple that with the increase in spam and scams and we are bound to experience some kind of slow down.
the real issue in internet service originates from a bad metric: channel speed in m/bits /sec
continuous or burst?
that characteristic of my net use is not considered in my service agreement and i think that is generally where ISPs have got caught off guard
there is a very large difference between what I'm doing this morning -- browsing around on the net with my Firefox -- and downloading large files, -- or worse -- providing available uploads of large files to any and all takers
5mb/sec browser grade is a VERY different service level vis 5mb/sec CONTINUOUS
to fix the problem, ISP need to RE-RATE their services. Browser traffic should give the high-speed bursts needed to browse web pages but would not need to support CONTINUOUS uploading or downloading. So a short-period cap would be appropriate. some study would be needed to resolve the actual offerings but the metric would change from the simplistic "5mb/sec" to something based on experieice, referencing the burst rate and the throughput. Perhaps: DATARATE: 5mb/sec THROUGHPUT 1GB/hr
the largest download i have done recently was XP/SP3 at about 325MB
some analysis and study will obviously be required. perhaps 3 elements will be needed in the vector, such as DATARATE: 5mb/sec AGGREGATE1: 1gb/hr AGGREGATE2: limit 2GB/day
this will result in specification files like the old MVS SMF systems, which could only be described as esoteric. something simpler, perhaps,--
my ISP's Acceptable Use Policy (AUP) says that I am not to set up a home server
perhaps a P2P package comprises a home server? I would say that it does, and that being the case I cannot use my home internet service to run it; i need a commercial service contract.
Vendors such as Comcast are most likely not performing these tests for the benefit of the average user. I would suspect their business driver is financial. Reducing bandwidth consumption over leased lines can save a substanial amount for the company. They are balancing the costs with offerings to their customers. Such vendors have spent years positioning themselves in the market place by buying out their competition. Their actions to limit BitTorrent and Peer2Peer activity only opens up a market for other ISP vendors who will not prohibit or limit this activity. Their claim that it is to alleviate net congestion is appropriately placed. Utimately, the customer has control on whether a vendor continues with such a program or not. If due to a program such as the blocking of BitTorrent or Peer2Peer a vendor losses its customer base and it starts to impact its revenue you can rest assured that they will review the impact. In many places customers have limited options and often will just accept what the ISP vendor gives them. They have other options like register with other broadband providers to be notified when service is offered in their area. While this is not an immediate solution it may promote competition for the consumers’ dollar.
Net neutrality is a tough issue. For depending which vertical market segment is tabled (infrastructure, access, services) there is different pro and against argumentation according to each stakeholder standpoint (operators, consumers, regulators).
Yet, if the discussion is narrowed to the service level, net neutrality is a very delicate issue too. Contemporary network technologies (Internet inherent protocol design & Packet Inspection practices/methods) have strong limitations to deliver sustainable (socially and business wise) ways to prioritize traffic. Bulk/Poorly planned traffic prioritization may hurt third parties' business models (like in the case of Comcast). More detailed, "deeper" packet inspection can severly hurt society by jeoprdizing consumer's privacy.
Any attempt to a clean cut, straight-forward answer to the net neutrality debate is very risky, as many details have to be worked out if the issue is to be addressed effectively.
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.
As Mitch Wagner discussed today, Yahoo is acquiring Tumblr. The big Internet debate at the moment is whether Tumblr will be good or bad for Yahoo. Regardless of their stances on the future of Yahoo itself, many claim that Yahoo will somehow ruin Tumblr.
Has China stolen a march on the West, developing an Internet architecture that is not only based on IPv6, but is also inherently secure from both internal and external attack?
Recently, the Obama administration has been of two minds where privacy rights are concerned. On one hand, you have an administration that vowed to veto CISPA and mandated open data for government websites. On the other hand, you have an increasingly out-of-control Department of Justice on a fishing expedition at AP and demanding legislation to let the FBI wiretap private, encrypted communications and levy fines if a company fails to comply.
The apartment and house sharing service, Airbnb, now requires members to verify their identities by demonstrating a presence on the web, and by either scanning a government ID or entering detailed personal details. Other enterprises should take a close look at Airbnb's verification policies.
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 automotive website uses propensity modeling to target ads and customer registration forms, said Brian Baron, director of business analytics for Edmunds.com, at Predictive Analytics Innovation Summit.
Subsidized handsets, rather than locked handsets, should be the focus of regulators. We're not getting good deals, not fostering innovation, and weakening our power as buyers.
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
