x
Services

QOS Fees Could Change Everything

The revelation that BellSouth Corp. (NYSE: BLS) is looking to charge content providers – especially gaming companies and movie download sites – for a premium ride across its network is good news for several gear vendors. But, at the same time, the trend is causing a stir among standalone VOIP companies.

BellSouth's plans, first reported last week in the Wall Street Journal, hits the topic of "net neutrality" – a belief that owners of broadband networks shouldn't discriminate against the kinds of applications and content sent across their network. (See Chirac Loves FTTH and Brand X Decision Stokes VOIP Worries.)

The notion that service providers would charge extra for quality of service (QOS) challenges the idea of net neutrality, and could put third-parties using broadband connections for VOIP and other services demanding low-latency connection at a distinct disadvantage.

"Broadband providers are taking an unpopular stance and saying, 'We won't provide QOS for any other services but ours,' " says Benoit Legault, VP of marketing at Ellacoya Networks.

The move, of course, could provide a boost to those producing "packet inspection devices," or traffic management. Deep packet inspection technologies, such as those sold by Caspian Networks Inc. , Cisco Systems Inc. (Nasdaq: CSCO), Ellacoya Networks Inc. , and Juniper Networks Inc. (NYSE: JNPR), to name a few, would be in high demand once a service provider decides to give paying content providers traffic priority over emails, file downloads, and even consumer VOIP phone calls.

VOIP providers, meanwhile, aren't so thrilled.

Critics say the phone companies are cooking up these new fees as a way to book more revenues without significantly upgrading their networks. Bryan R. Martin, CEO of Packet 8, is excited that BellSouth is reselling his company's VOIP service, but that doesn’t mean he agrees with the idea of carrier QOS fees. "We're hopeful that the networks will get better, but if one of these companies were to approach 8X8 and say, 'Would you pay X many dollars a month in order to get some sort of improved access' – be it bandwidth or latency or whatever – we would just laugh at them and say, 'No,' " says Martin.

Proponents of net neutrality worry that if BellSouth starts charging for premium access, it may decide to limit what kinds of content users have access to – or it may charge users more money for sharing home videos or other high-bandwidth applications.

BellSouth spokesman Jeff Battcher says that his company isn't interested in being the content police or trying to limit what people can do on the Net. Rather, he says, they're trying to provide a service in the video world that's analogous to what companies get when they buy a 1-800 telephone number.

"When you call a 1-800 number to Lands End… they're willing and want to pay for that call so they can receive your business," Battcher says. He says that similarly, companies are approaching BellSouth to ask for a faster pipe to some consumers so those consumers won't be disappointed and, in turn, blame the content provider for a bad experience.

But if content providers don't pay for BellSouth's premium service, then nothing much will change, Battcher says.

BellSouth and other carriers haven't arrived at a firm conclusion as to whom they'll charge, whom they won't charge, and what kind of money is at stake.

BellSouth's Battcher says that none of BellSouth's deals with gaming companies and content providers will involve making the consumer pay more for a DSL connection. However, the very technology that BellSouth would use to deliver on those deals can be applied in reverse to allow consumers to pay for brief periods of higher bandwidth bursts. (See BellSouth's Smith Details IPTV Plans.)

Deep packet inspection companies say some network congestion problems can be solve by broadband providers looking at their network's traffic and applying some "proportional enforcement" to those heavy users of, for instance, P2P file-swapping services.

Junaid Islam, VP of marketing at Caspian, says in China one big carrier used proportional enforcement to keep P2P traffic from ruining the experience of casual Web users. The more often users downloaded large files during peak usage hours, the slower the downloads would occur. No traffic was blocked, but the slowdowns forced businesses and other heavy downloaders to either upgrade their services or wait to do their heavy use until odd hours.

In the U.S., deep packet inspection companies say that some very large carriers are looking at applying policy-based routing and other ways of building in QOS throughout their networks. And, to the chagrin of VOIP companies, the early discussions suggest that such services won't be free.

One motivating factor in going to the QOS model is that it would come before broadband has really hit its growth peak – and thus it would ensure better profitability going forward. For example, a carrier like BellSouth has hooked up less than 20 percent of the potential customers it can reach.

BellSouth last reported that it had 2.7 million DSL customers, and the carrier will update those figures during its next earnings call on January 25. Some 85 percent of the 16 million households the carrier serves – about 13.6 million households – can be reached by at least a basic 1.5-Mbit/s DSL connection.

How do you feel about this issue? Take our latest poll: Net Neutrality.

— Phil Harvey, News Editor, Light Reading

<<   <   Page 2 / 18   >   >>
unlimited 12/5/2012 | 4:09:32 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything "They advertise the connection bit rate on both cable and DSL (and FiOS for that matter)."

Have you been able to verify your connection bit rate?
unlimited 12/5/2012 | 4:09:32 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything "That's the question you should have asked before you signed the initial contract. The answer (if you could've gotten a straight answer) would've been disappointing enough to give you serious pause..."

Not my point. I know what I have paid for but does the average subscriber? If you extrapolate this state of affairs then access providers will charge service providers for QoS but who will verify that it is delivered? Now that could be a good business model!
unlimited 12/5/2012 | 4:09:32 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything "Actually, what you pay for is a bit rate of the access port. You get no guarantees of anything else. This is massively oversubscribed."

Exactly. But is that what they advertise?
Arc 12/5/2012 | 4:09:31 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything The drive for this thread is that GÇ£Application Service ProvidersGÇ¥ (i.e. those that do not own the network) want 90% of the profit margin while assuming 10% of the risk. Now the carriers are starting to fight back. ItGÇÖs not surprising they are raising questions regarding net-neutrality. FUD GÇô Fear Uncertainty and Doubt

It seems that most responding to this article are aware that with out the network there is no service. What is not so obvious is that the carriers have some of the largest capital budgets in the nation and are therefore assuming a substantial part of the risk (bandwidth is not free). It also seems only logical that they should be compensated for providing the infrastructure that delivers the service. The split of the profit margin should be more like 50:50. After all why should long distance transport of IP traffic be free? QOS is one of the mechanisms that will be used to establish a reasonable equilibrium where the network gets paid for. As far as I recall, that is the way a free market system is intended to work.

(Oh ya, regulatory. The only thing that accomplished was the destruction of the worldGÇÖs premier R&D lab - Bell Labs. Hmm. I smell sour grapes.)

I have never heard anyone seriously propose that 3rd parties should not have access to QOS. They can buy it if they choose or they can buy Best Effort (BE). If they want low latency and/or more BW then they should pay for it.

WRT to access. I check performance a lot and I have always measured throughput in the access at pretty close to line rate (never use DSL :). So long as I stay on my providerGÇÖs network I get very good performance (approaching 15Mbs). As soon as my traffic goes through a peering point ...

For my 2 cents worth GÇô this transition is long over due.
paolo.franzoi 12/5/2012 | 4:09:31 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything
I never said I could verify the clocked bit rate of the line. You asked what was advertised and what I agreed to pay for.

When I worked in the Enterprise world there was all types of products with EMS support to ensure that companies were getting the SLAs (it is funny to think of line conditioning as SLAs but whatever) that they paid for.

seven
spelurker 12/5/2012 | 4:09:31 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything > But if I discover my broadband provider is
> artifically impairing my service (which is
> inevitable even if it is unintentional) or trying
> to make money off of my third-party content
> purchases, I will find another broadband provider.

> In other words, the RBOCs are forgetting who the customer is.

I don't think anyone else is going to make a provider selection based on whether the provider makes money off of 3rd parties. a) No one notices this. b) It makes their services less pricey.

There's companies out there (Skype, 8x8, Vonage...) who are expecting a certain level of service, even though they don't pay for it. I've used Skype -- it's hit or miss. Some calls are pretty good, some are near unintelligible, some are good sound quality, but randomly hang up. These companies have 2 choices -- accept that they will have unpredictable services or they can do something to get reliable service -- they can pay for it.

Why on earth would a bandwidth provider go to the effort of providing differentiated QoS if there was no return on the investment of time and equipment? And even if they already want to provide QoS for one of their own services, they need to perform admission control, to make sure no-one shuts down voip by marking huge FTP transfers as high priority.

The facility-less VoIP providers are living in a bubble, and it's going to burst.
catscan 12/5/2012 | 4:09:30 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything Take a look at the European RBOCs. They togehter with equipment vendors are standardizing this QoS police. RACS in ETSI Tispan.
I recently read about Tispan at LR,
http://www.lightreading.com/do...
From my understanding the RACS ensures bandwith.

catscan
turing 12/5/2012 | 4:09:30 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything Spelurker you are so right. Did people think service providers were going to deploy diffserv and MPLS-TE for QoS, and fast reroute and other mechanisms for high reliability, and let some other virtual service provider reap the rewards of that for free?

All this time people have been talking about Qos and such for enterprise VPNs as a good thing, and now they cry when they realize that the service providers are going to offer those enterprises QoS for their service to reach consumers instead of remaining private. (After all, what are Yahoo and Ebay if not big enterprises from BellSouth's perspective?)
TheMuffinMan 12/5/2012 | 4:09:30 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything Take a look at the European RBOCs. They togehter with equipment vendors are standardizing this QoS police. RACS in ETSI Tispan.
I recently read about Tispan at LR,
http://www.lightreading.com/do...
From my understanding the RACS ensures bandwith.


TISPAN and IMS both have admission and resource control functions - how bandwidth management is done is probably the most interesting part of how to get QoS to work in a converged network, companies like Operax (no I don't work for them) already have RACS compliant boxes, although I don't know of any operator that's yet widely deployed this kind of box.

I think this will be one of the single most important areas for operators to focus on if they want to get out of the bit transport market and find new revenue opportunities!
optoslob 12/5/2012 | 4:09:29 AM
re: QOS Fees Could Change Everything QOS is an interesting problem, I know that from every macro analysis, that I've seen, the cheapest way to ensure high quality service is to double the connection bandwidth of the overloading link. Adding QOS to an existing network, can even decrease total throughput. It is akin to paying a BW provider to create an intentional bottleneck and than bidding for priority access to the bottleneck. Just makes no sense at a macro level. ItGÇÖs time to dump any BW provider that even suggests this model.

I had hoped the MG would have something to say about walled gardens she has a certain eloquence and moral righteousness that makes the argument compelling. I think my version would sound commercially motivated and crass.

The network manager / provider needs to focus on those technical metrics that make BW cheap, available and useful for an ever larger range of applications.
optoslob






<<   <   Page 2 / 18   >   >>
HOME
Sign In
SEARCH
CLOSE
MORE
CLOSE