Japan's NTT tests TV service: A Net neutrality debate waiting to happen

TOKYO--Here's something for those of you who get all bent out of shape about Net neutrality.

Japanese telecommunications giant NTT Group is in the midst of preparing its Next Generation Network, or NGN. NGN promises to marry the versatility of the Internet with the reliability of the wired phone network. The company hopes to achieve nationwide coverage by 2010. Speeds will range from 30 megabits per second to 1 gigabit per second. The company didn't narrow it down further, but in any event the service will be faster than current DSL.

NGN will be used for a lot of stuff: to deliver images from security cameras to your home or office, carry high-quality VoiP calls, deliver on-demand movies, etc.

The company, however, will also have priority pricing. If you pay for the highest quality of service, you will get unimpeded service for digital TV delivery. If you are cheaper, and you don't pay for premium service, you might experience a few blips on the screen if a lot of your neighbors are tuning in.

NTT showed off how this might work to a group of reporters visiting its technology showcase center in the Otemachi section of Tokyo. When a third TV came on line, two screens with priority service continued to have great connections. A third began to crackle occasionally.

Priority service drives Net neutrality fans nuts because companies get to offer better service to those who pay for it. Since the service isn't rolled out in Japan yet, it's hard to say what the consumer reaction will be or how NTT will ultimately offer its services. But you could see some people getting upset if they sense unfairness or overreaching.

Speaking of demos, NTT also showed off a video-conferencing application but the voice-to-image synchronization was a bit off. Well, it's not 2010 yet.

[ktmotox]

Net Neutrality

I'm not sure if this article was accurate on it's reference to net neutrality. What I understand is that net neutrality refers to providing the same service to all content providers at the same cost. You can't charge one content provider a different rate than another content provider for the same bandwidth. Net neutrality does not apply to fees charged to content consumers. It also does not apply to different fees for different levels of service.

[DraconumPB]

I think you're right...

It's like paying for a longer warranty... a better car with less miles on it... the enterprise version or the consumer version. There doesn't really seem to be anything wrong here in terms of net neutrality. Now, the only question is, will consumers who continue to pay the same amount or similar to what they pay now continue to recieve similar or better service, or will they have to upgrade the price in order to maintain their current QoS?

That's the only thing I could see people really getting upset about, myself. This isn't giving one type of traffic priority over another.. it's creating a 'premium' service that allows access to the same content/networks/internet/whatever at a faster rate or more reliably, which is something that happens normally (does it not?). It's not saying, "Pay the extra fee if you want to use BitTorrent or YouTube"....

[ethana2]

absolutely

I felt the article was inaccurate in this way.

If you pay for your bandwidth, you should get to use it however you please, hosting your own web page, watching online TV, VoIP, torrents, etc. If you don't, then being able to exceed what you did pay for in un-guaranteed burst speeds sounds like a good deal.

[sagecast]

Wow!. Did You Get it Wrong.

Net Neutrality supporters have no problems with priority service as long as it is the result of end user's choice and not ISP discrimination.

What Japan is doing is simply offering different speeds of service at different rates to the consumer -- much in the way many Americans can choose between cable, DSL and dial-up. To say this "drives Net Neutrality fans nuts" betrays your ignorance on the issue.

Net Neutrality supporters want a competitive marketplace where people can choose from numerous broadband companies offering access at different speeds and costs. We also demand a system system where the few phone and cable companies that dominate the market can't leverage their control over Internet access to become gatekeepers of Web content.

It's simple. Net Neutrality doesn't allow ISPs to discriminate in favor of certain sites over others. It prevents, say, Verizon from streaming a connection to a pro-life Web site more quickly to you while slowing or degrading a connection to a pro-choice Web site, based on a financial deal struck with the owner of the content.

The user's choice of speed of service has absolutely nothing to do with that.

Before you take a shot at Net Neutrality supporters, you need to become familiar with the issue. CNET should know better.

[Dalkorian]

thank you

Sagecast noted this:

"It's simple. Net Neutrality doesn't allow ISPs to discriminate in
favor of certain sites over others. It prevents, say, Verizon from
streaming a connection to a pro-life Web site more quickly to
you while slowing or degrading a connection to a pro-choice
Web site, based on a financial deal struck with the owner of the
content."

Thank you. So many people seem to misunderstand this issue
that I sometimes wonder if I have it wrong. This sums up the
issue pretty nicely.