& cplSiteName &
Comments
Newest First  |  Oldest First  |  Threaded View        ADD A COMMENT
<<   <   Page 2 / 6   >   >>
dh44
dh44
12/5/2012 | 4:06:52 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
Why not have a QOS-based network with the lowest priority being Best Effort? As a compromise, why can't new government regulations require service providers to "reserve" a certain percentage of their network bandwidth to always be available for Best Effort. The remaining network BW could be allocated to higher QOS flows as SPs see fit.

Since most of QOS-based bandwidth will be consumed by IPTV in the near future, the portion reserved for Best Effort traffic should be relatively small. New regulations may need to require different scales of Best Effort bandwidth reservation depending on what part or type of network is being allocated.

Darrell
stephencooke
stephencooke
12/5/2012 | 4:06:51 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
RJS,

"If I know that I will pay a hefty penalty for going over my limit, whether it is Mb/s download/upload or the max bytes transfered,
I - the end user will self-monitor."

The point that I was trying to make is that, when computers are involved, viruses and worms can be involved which nullifies, or at least makes it extremely difficult, for you to self-monitor. Spambots send out thousands of emails per host (bot) to all sorts of unsuspecting recipients. What if those bots set their traffic priority to be high? As there is likely to be a smaller traffic limit on high priority traffic that will cost extra, could it cause the consumer to incur additional penalties? A poor example but it illustrates the point.

Steve.
wrobeljas
wrobeljas
12/5/2012 | 4:06:49 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
Basically, right now I am paying for my broadband, and I am free to choose any service provider I want (including VoIP "parasites").

In the world from the telecom companies dream, I am offered good service only from the ones who paid my provider. My choice is limited. And may this QoS contracts be exclusive ?? (Vonage paying Verizon for QoS, and for not providing QoS to competitors...)

This is what already happened in game consoles world (games exclusive for one platform), is enforced in music industry (play songs from iTunes only on iPod) and right now is extended to the Internet-alike services world.

Sad but partially inevitable.
optodoofus
optodoofus
12/5/2012 | 4:06:48 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
Secret Squirrel,

I think you are looking at this issue all wrong. The issue here is that the ILECs and cable companies have (essentailly) monopoly power over the access infrastructure in this country. If they can institute pay-for-QOS, then they can use this to provide an advantage to their own services. So, suppose they developed their own search engine (fat chance of that, but let's pretend they can innovate). They can easily make sure that their search service gets great QOS at no additional cost to themselves. However, anyone who wants to go to Google will get poorer service - unless Google and/or the end user pay up. The economic impact of this will be to stifle competition and hence innovation on the Internet.

I would be all for IP QOS services as long as the ILECs and cable companies would agree to structural separation. Break the services piece of the ILEC/cable business out, and make the paying field level. This is essentially what the local loop unbundling process has done in Europe, and the amount of investment, competition and innovation this has spurred is amazing. But here we sit - with no competition and little hope of seeing any anytime soon. Allowing the ILECs and cable companies to tighten their monpoly positions by forcing Internet applications to pony up for QOS if they want to compete will just make the situation that much worse.

optodoofus
Chicknbut
Chicknbut
12/5/2012 | 4:06:48 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
Way to go Ted. Sure, SONET pipes carrying IP is sort of like oil pipelines,but pure IP networks are sort of, like, different.

It's time some telecom savvy individuals run the FCC rather than sycophants, puppets and thirty-something booty kissers. While telecom policy may have been original based on railroad regualtion, the current model doesn't fit.

The RBOCs et al are pissed because they can't get at the real money at play here, that of content. Pipes, like the big and little iron that faciliates them, are a commodity. The money is in the content. While this has something to do with the Googles and Vonages of the world, I bet it has more to do with the Sonys and the Viacoms. The big cable players want to be able to transition their content to a different pipe without a loss of their insipid, monopolistic pricing, while BT (Big Telco) wants to make their own deals directly with content providers.

If Google beats them to it, the RBOC can't pay the salaries of the 2000 VP's and Sr VP's that work in their beautiful headquarters.

stephencooke
stephencooke
12/5/2012 | 4:06:47 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
Hi Tera,

Yes, there is nothing new under the sun! Large corporations will likely be more vigilant than smaller corporations and consumers. How many viruses limit their targets to large corporations do you think? I have no idea but I haven't heard of any, but we have all heard about lots of viruses.

You, tera, the consumer, may choose to pay for QoS from your provider to get streaming video or crystal clear VoIP service. You agree to pay for the amount that you feel you will use. Your carrier doesn't want to limit you to that so they give you a deal on what you think you will use but they put in what it will cost you when you exceed that amount (which is probably much higher in cost). Can you see it yet...? Your computer gets a virus that generates huge amounts of premium-level traffic putting you far beyond your self-imposed limits and you owe the carrier big bucks.

The point is that anyone with a broadband connection is now just as likely to be targetted in a scam such as this as a large corporation was for trunk hijacking in years past. As a consumer do you have the resources (ie: someone whose job it is to monitor and deal with these things) as a large corporation? Do you have the clout with a carrier to get around these things if/when they occur? Not likely, to both questions.

Steve.
jmunn
jmunn
12/5/2012 | 4:06:47 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
I think Google looked at what happened to the CLECs having to pay the ILECs for "better access" and saw that the CLECs had no control of the pricing. The ILECs raised the costs to the CLECs and shut them down.

If Google started paying X for QoS now, which might still be a good business model, there is nothing to stop the service provider from charging 10X for that same QoS later, probably not a sustainable model.

Remember the Past or Repeat It!
opticalwatcher
opticalwatcher
12/5/2012 | 4:06:47 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
Steve wrote:
"When things cost money...people will find ways to write viruses to use high-priced bandwidth that will leave unsuspecting consumers with nasty bills."

Hasn't that always been the case? There's nothing new here. I'm not an expert at PSTN, but I found a site that describes the same thing being done on T1 trunks:
http://www.celticrover.com/bgt...

So if companies start routing their traffic over IP rather than over switched T1 lines, they'll have exactly the same threat of someone trying to steal that pipe.

opticalwatcher
opticalwatcher
12/5/2012 | 4:06:46 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
I don't think that viruses would cost consumers with QoS becaus I don't think that that is how QoS will get sold.

Right now if I buy DSL from SBC, I can pay for a 1.5Mb/sec peak limit or a 3.0Mb/sec peak limit. Both are best effort, so in congested times they both may give the same rate--or SBC may give a slightly higher QoS to the 3.0Mb/sec links because the consumer is paying more. There's no extra cost if the consumer's virus ties up the line. There are some mobile broadband systems that charge like this but I don't know of any DSL offerings like this.

Another way of doing QoS is for certain services like IPTV or VOIP. For this, the CO would would recognize and control the traffic to your home. I suppose a virus could disguise itself as VOIP traffic, but there is nothing stopping a virus from doing that today and start making VOIP calls to Scotland from your PC.
telco1158
telco1158
12/5/2012 | 4:06:45 AM
re: Cerf's Up for Neutrality Debate
I think the "virus" that Stephen was illustrating was not the traditional virus that infects a system, but more of a bot to artificially drive up throughput on a user's network and thus increase costs. Something similiar to a DoS attack. There does exist something remotely akin to the hypothetical bandwidth fraud... Click Fraud, which affects the cost and payment of Internet advertising. Besides other factors, the cost of running an ad depends on the number of clicks the ad gets. Click fraud uses bots to artificially drive up the cost of a competitor's ad, or stuff the pockets of the advertising site. The reality of click fraud is debatable, but its been said to be the kink in Goog's armor.
<<   <   Page 2 / 6   >   >>


Featured Video
Upcoming Live Events
October 22, 2019, Los Angeles, CA
November 5, 2019, London, England
November 7, 2019, London, UK
November 14, 2019, Maritim Hotel, Berlin
December 3-5, 2019, Vienna, Austria
December 3, 2019, New York, New York
March 16-18, 2020, Embassy Suites, Denver, Colorado
May 18-20, 2020, Irving Convention Center, Dallas, TX
All Upcoming Live Events