The answer lies beyond the rhetoric, requiring an understanding of technology and the networks themselves. This is the approach that should inform Congressional decisions.
One view of network neutrality, also known as Net neutrality, is that Internet service providers, such as telephone and cable companies, should treat equally all types of Internet traffic traveling over their networks. For some, allowing network providers to treat some traffic differently than other traffic evokes visions of big corporations blocking consumer applications and restricting consumer freedoms.
The reality is that traffic must be managed in order to ensure fairness of service quality for all Internet users.
Research conducted by Ellacoya Networks shows that up to 5 percent of broadband subscribers can consume nearly 90 percent of network bandwidth, primarily by using high-bandwidth applications such as streaming media and, especially, file sharing. These demands are more than doubling network capacity requirements each year.
By contrast, up to 90 percent of broadband subscribers consume less than 10 percent of network bandwidth. They most often check their e-mail, browse the Web and send instant messages. The problem--and the unfairness--occurs during times of peak congestion, when the activity of the 5 percent of heavy-use subscribers slows things down for the 90 percent using far less bandwidth-intensive applications.
In addition, the issue goes beyond convenience: How will a service provider guarantee that a 911 call will get through a congested network if the provider is forbidden from prioritizing real-time traffic?
To solve the problem, some suggest simply building more capacity. But that won't work, for the same reason that crowded suburbs cannot shorten commute times by simply building more roads. Without planning for what kind of traffic is coming and where it will occur, those extra roads will just fill up and jam again in no time.
Directing traffic
The good news is that technology now exists that allows service providers to fix overcrowding. In addition to allowing content providers to split out their "big bandwidth" applications, today's technology can associate network traffic with application types and subscribers. This makes smart traffic management possible and, where it has been tried, it has resulted in better performance and increased customer satisfaction.
But without bandwidth management, a majority of users will continue to be harmed by a minority who consume the lion's share of bandwidth.
Internet service providers should be able to offer classes of service so that they and other content and application providers can offer voice and video services with performance guarantees. This would not prevent any service provider from offering--or customers from using--voice and video applications as they do now. It would simply mean that those companies wishing to deliver a certain quality of voice or video service, and willing to pay more for performance guarantees, will be able to do so.
Many industries already offer consumers and providers the choice of different levels of service, and this has proven a successful business model for both service providers and consumers.
While the U.S. has led the world in establishing business models in technology markets, such is not the case with the broadband Internet. As the U.S. debates this matter, much of the rest of the world sees an opportunity, improving service by offering more choices and different service or pricing plans.
For instance, PlusNet, a leading Internet service provider in the United Kingdom, offers its customers three different service plans based on applications, speed, usage and time of day. After introducing choice, PlusNet saw its subscriber base spike by as much as 15 percent and revenue increase by as much as 20 percent. Even many existing customers decided to upgrade their service.
Networks need traffic management. We need a solution that reflects experience and facts, not rhetoric. The result will be better and faster Internet service for everyone.
Biography
Gerald Wesel is chairman and CEO of Ellacoya Networks, a manufacturer of Internet technologies for traffic management.
See more CNET content tagged:
network capacity, service provider, business model, video service, traffic
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
- Don't leave it up to the ISPs...
- by davelax40 February 12, 2007 9:26 PM PST
- ...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.
- Like this Reply to this comment
-
(8 Comments)