Comments on: No free lunches on the Net

ISPs should be free to charge for service that guarantees voice and video performance, Ellacoya CEO Gerald Wesel says.

[patkohler]

missed

It is as if you are arguing for something completely different. Network traffic management is one thing, but forcing providers to pay for the bandwidth is another. Having seperate "pipes" for telephone, video, music, games, and regular internet is a great idea. But what the big shots at the telecoms and cable companies want is to charge service provoiders for priority service or just to charge them in general. I think it is someone at ATT that said that Google is using all their bandwidth for free. That is not the case. He is looking at the bandwidth from the wrong point of view. They are getting their money for the bandwidth used. The consumer is paying for the bandwidth to access Google services. Charging Google for bandwidth is like double taxing a service.

[amizell]

Bandwidth is Easy and Cheap

You argument is based on the feeling that some users are "hogging" Internet bandwidth and causing problems for other users but this is not borne out by observation. When was the last time you actually saw network congestion on the Internet pipes? It doesn't happen.

Currently the Internet is delivering video, VoIP, interactive apps and all other kinds of content with no problem. It's true that usage will continue to increase and so will bandwidth. WIth all of the "dark fiber" strung across this planet right now it's hard to imagine the bandwidth crunch that you are keen to correct with myopic legislation.

Bandwidth management and priortization at the ISP level are solutions for a problem that does not exist. I suggest that we not start writing laws until there is an actual problem that needs to be addressed.

[derechbennoach]

Restrictions have always been in place.

I am a network administrator. I also run several servers at my home for fun and testing. I would love to use Comcast at home but they do not allow Internet service ports on the standard user accounts. I don't blame them. I buy a T1 from a local ISP.

This is not new Isp's have had use restrictions for years. Aggregating bandwidth with unknowns demands it.

I read that a bill is in process to force carriers to have open and unrestricted bandwidth. This will never work for long. Have we forgotten the citizen band radio fiasco of the '70s.

E911 is a real issue Vonage and other voip customers have to face. In my area Comcast has many Vonage customers. Comcast never promised to guarantee Vonage traffic any more that they did Yahoo's. It is all data to them -- outbound 128k inbound 6m or so first come first serve, resend on failure. VOIP's rtp without QOS can get a bit choppy sharing lans or wans with files or music streams. Now there is talk of IPTV. Packet management is the only way to preserve the flow of information on a network.

--John Hill

[ballssalty]

Hogs huh?

I'm sorry, the sole purpose of upgrading to broadband is for video, voip, high speed fat pipes!

I'm sorry, if 90% are just checking email and surfing the web, then go back to dial-up. Don't call me a hog because I actually use my broadband connection for what it was intended for. That is just BS.

This is all about telecom companies getting greedy.

HOGWASH!!

I find your arguments insulting to my intelligence.
Everyone knows that the telephone companies already have a multi-tier pricing model in place for consumers for their DSL services. And now you are trying to apply these fees. A second time to content providers.
It would seem to me that you're going to bite off your nose to spite your face. Content is the reason consumers are demanding higher speeds and better service at any price. Limit the content, and you limit your product, rather stupid I would say.
I was quite amused that the old-school business marketing technique of fear mongering. The poor emergency 911 caller that only has Internet service for his only means of placing an emergency call. I guess this would be similar to the auto insurance industry's technique of basing their insurance prices on the theoretical accident school bus full of nuns. And who's going to pay the medical bills.

I love it when an industry pulls out their heavyweight CEOs to become the voice of reason and authority and in issues such as this. A sure sign of hogwash.

and although the motives sound noble, we know in America when it comes to business, greed always rules and graft and corruption in government assist in letting big companies have their way with the American people.how many of the representatives that voted in favor of your bill have stock in the telco? And stand to profit nicely, if your bill is passed at the expense of the Democratic Internet..

By the way, you failed to mention that there's already software in place. To allow for priority routing of emergency calls overall traffic.

Your plan is designed to capture and reserve. The only truly democratic platforms left on the planet for the rich and affluent and to force people to return to a floundering and corrupt mainstream media for their news...

Once again, I say HOGWASH your shallow veiled motives,more money at the cost of freedom. Should be apparent to all but the most retarded. And will probably result in a call for a global wireless network, free of your calls to and regulations, I hear communities are setting up WiFi networks. Privately to avoid just what your group is proposing.

[mikepellegrini]

This guy is a avaricious person with a sub-par intelligence quotient...

...that if allowed to continue, will ruin the internet as we know it.

The whole thing is just a flimsy excuse to wring a few more pennies out of the currently available bandwidth.

I really think he more properly belongs at AOL, where if we're lucky, he'll go down with the ship.

[davelax40]

Don't leave it up to the ISPs...

...leave bandwidth management up to the networks. I've experienced bandwidth congestion at work first hand and see the need for a solution, but I don't think it should be at the cost of universal net neutrality. Products like netequalizer (what we use) kick into gear when there is a need for bandwidth shaping, but don't do it 24-7. Couldn't ISPs do the same thing? You'll be free to use as much bandwidth as you want when there's no congestion, but will just have to wait a little longer for a song to download when the bandwidth is in high demand.

[davelax40]

Don't leave it up to the ISPs...

...leave bandwidth management up to the networks. I've experienced bandwidth congestion at work first hand and see the need for a solution, but I don't think it should be at the cost of universal net neutrality. Products like netequalizer (what we use) kick into gear when there is a need for bandwidth shaping, but don't do it 24-7. Couldn't ISPs do the same thing? You'll be free to use as much bandwidth as you want when there's no congestion, but will just have to wait a little longer for a song to download when the bandwidth is in high demand.