Newsmaker: Verizon says Net neutrality is overhyped

(continued from previous page)

But doesn't giving priority to some traffic, create a shortage of bandwidth for other traffic?
Wegleitner: We don't have any desire to create any shortages of bandwidth. The issue is that consumers at times want to do more things than their bandwidth subscription allows them to do. So do we let all the applications and users suffer as a result of the one request that put them over the top? Or do we provide four to five excellent experiences, and tell the sixth person, you will have to do yours another time? Common sense would tell you, you'd want to preserve the performance of existing applications and not just have everyone coming in on top of each other ruining the experience for everyone else.

If people are willing to live forever in a best-effort world and say, "I don't want any management, make it the Wild West, and whatever happens, happens," then we have a whole different ball game.

So all this talk about creating different tiers of service in the network is really about managing traffic rather than trying to create a new revenue stream or even keeping competitors off the network?
Wegleitner: Yes, in my estimation it is. The real issue is what do I need to do to maintain the service level performance to make sure the customer continues to be my customer? And the network and users of the network, whether they are consumers or content providers, have to agree on what is important. I just don?t think that a free-for-all situation will result in the kind of user experience that will make anyone happy.

But is it really necessary for Verizon to charge additional fees to manage its own network?
Wegleitner: I can't provide the kind of management, in terms of quality of service to ensure the user experience is a pleasant one, without investing in the network. There's a lot of difference between a best effort network that will just choke in the event of an overload and one that will manage through that period preserving as many sessions as possible with adequate performance and gracefully denying additional usage in those cases where they can't be served.

I'm sure consumers and businesses would like to at least preserve the experience they've got, rather than allow that experience to be trod upon by anyone who would make a high bandwidth request. If you want that kind of managed service, some sort compensation is appropriate because there is an investment involved to provide it.

If people are willing to live forever in a best-effort world and say, "I don?t want any management, make it the Wild West, and whatever happens, happens," then we have a whole different ball game. But I just don?t think that people who are interested in providing quality services to their customers really want that.

Aren't content providers already paying Verizon and other broadband providers to access their network?
Wegleitner: Not necessarily. They are paying some Internet service provider. So Google or whoever is paying some ISP. And DSL consumers are paying us for access to the Internet.

We are also a major tier-one Internet service provider, so some Web sites are hosted off that network. And we get some ISPs that pay us for Internet connectivity there. But there are a lot of backbone providers, such as AT&T, Level 3, Global Crossing, and anybody else hosting Web sites. They are all being paid by people connecting to them.

Then there are peering and transit arrangements between carriers. So if you have a peering agreement between, say AT&T and Verizon, there is a traffic exchange. In many cases this exchange happens without monetary compensation. But in some cases, depending on what kind of peering and transit arrangements you have in place, money is exchanged.

Even if you charge content providers for differentiated service, won't the cost be passed onto consumers anyway?
Wegleitner: I don't think the cost has to go to one area. I think the content provider and consumer or the business or the end user can participate in the economics associated with providing the kind of service that I am talking about here.  

More Newsmakers

[LarryLo]

Looking out for their users.... HAHahahahaha!

"The issue is that consumers at times want to do more things than their bandwidth subscription allows them to do. So do we let all the applications and users suffer as a result of the one request that put them over the top?"

If I paid for 768 K I can do what ever I want with it. Verizon or ANY ISP has no business limiting, interfering or ?Best Efforting? my packets. Doesn?t matter if I am doing voice, video or data. Its not their business, their job is to make sure ALL my packets get to and from my home as fast as they can, that?s it.

Lets call this what it is, forced tiered services, I sincerely hope if they ever get their way and actually implement these service tiers to their home DSL subscribers, Yahoo, Microsoft and Google ALL redirect Verizon Customers to a page explaining that they don?t want ?all the applications and users to suffer? as result of an inferior network connection, so they are blocking the service at this time.

Maybe that might get the Telco?s attention?

Finally, What's up with CNET's coverage of the Net Neutrality debate, seems to me they have become a Mouth Piece for the Telcos?

[LarryLo]

Looking out for their users.... HAHahahahaha!

"The issue is that consumers at times want to do more things than their bandwidth subscription allows them to do. So do we let all the applications and users suffer as a result of the one request that put them over the top?"

If I paid for 768 K I can do what ever I want with it. Verizon or ANY ISP has no business limiting, interfering or ?Best Efforting? my packets. Doesn?t matter if I am doing voice, video or data. Its not their business, their job is to make sure ALL my packets get to and from my home as fast as they can, that?s it.

Lets call this what it is, forced tiered services, I sincerely hope if they ever get their way and actually implement these service tiers to their home DSL subscribers, Yahoo, Microsoft and Google ALL redirect Verizon Customers to a page explaining that they don?t want ?all the applications and users to suffer? as result of an inferior network connection, so they are blocking the service at this time.

Maybe that might get the Telco?s attention?

Finally, What's up with CNET's coverage of the Net Neutrality debate, seems to me they have become a Mouth Piece for the Telcos?

[directorblue]

For the love of... can't any reporter ask these three questions?

Cisco is pitching new and ominous hardware that can help filter, monitor, and control packet flow for carriers. Because of this, I have crafted three simple questions that the carriers should be required to answer before they are permitted to violate network neutrality. They are as follows:

1) Will you use deep packet inspection to analyze and/or meter customer behavior?

2) Will you offer tiered or restricted (e.g., "gold", "silver", and "bronze") Internet packages to customers otherwise operating at the same bandwidth?

3) Will you monitor and/or block voice-over-IP (VoIP), peer-to-peer file transfers, or any other class of communication by customers based upon tier or service plan?

I believe the carriers should be forced to answer these three questions honestly and directly.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/network-neutrality-three-simple.html

[directorblue]

For the love of... can't any reporter ask these three questions?

Cisco is pitching new and ominous hardware that can help filter, monitor, and control packet flow for carriers. Because of this, I have crafted three simple questions that the carriers should be required to answer before they are permitted to violate network neutrality. They are as follows:

1) Will you use deep packet inspection to analyze and/or meter customer behavior?

2) Will you offer tiered or restricted (e.g., "gold", "silver", and "bronze") Internet packages to customers otherwise operating at the same bandwidth?

3) Will you monitor and/or block voice-over-IP (VoIP), peer-to-peer file transfers, or any other class of communication by customers based upon tier or service plan?

I believe the carriers should be forced to answer these three questions honestly and directly.

http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2006/02/network-neutrality-three-simple.html

[CagedAnimal]

Telecoms do their own overhyping

It is really an issue of whether ISPs should be allowed to to block or throttle packets based on port, or source and destination IP addresses. That is what any Internet favoritism really comes down to. ISPs really like to have this ability, and Net Neutrality legislation would probabably take it away from them.

Sometimes these filters may be well intentioned (like slowing the spread of a virus or cutting down on spam), other times, they are not (blocking VoIP, preventing customers from running their own servers, or using other services). Whatever the purpose, it is should not be the role ISP to decide what a subscriber does with their Internet connection and the bandwidth they are paying for. It is a shame their strategy is they try to present such legislation as a stumbling block that would make new business models infeasible.

Most interpretations of Network Neutrality would not prevent them from selling dedicated pipes to content providers. It would not prevent them from accomodating occasional traffic spikes to low bandwidth subscribers and charging customers accordingly; they could even have a system where content providers could take financial responsibility for those spikes. In short, they could still charge the high bandwidth users more for their use of the network, and have pricing plans appropriate to different usage patterns. They just could not do it on such discriminary terms.

So besides having to provide customers with true Internet connectivity instead of just a subset of it, what are they complaining about?

[volterwd]

Bandwidth Crunch?

How is it korea can provide so much more to their citizens and yet the telco's are complaining that the users are overwhelming their archaic system?

[CagedAnimal]

Telecoms do their own overhyping

It is really an issue of whether ISPs should be allowed to to block or throttle packets based on port, or source and destination IP addresses. That is what any Internet favoritism really comes down to. ISPs really like to have this ability, and Net Neutrality legislation would probabably take it away from them.

Sometimes these filters may be well intentioned (like slowing the spread of a virus or cutting down on spam), other times, they are not (blocking VoIP, preventing customers from running their own servers, or using other services). Whatever the purpose, it is should not be the role ISP to decide what a subscriber does with their Internet connection and the bandwidth they are paying for. It is a shame their strategy is they try to present such legislation as a stumbling block that would make new business models infeasible.

Most interpretations of Network Neutrality would not prevent them from selling dedicated pipes to content providers. It would not prevent them from accomodating occasional traffic spikes to low bandwidth subscribers and charging customers accordingly; they could even have a system where content providers could take financial responsibility for those spikes. In short, they could still charge the high bandwidth users more for their use of the network, and have pricing plans appropriate to different usage patterns. They just could not do it on such discriminary terms.

So besides having to provide customers with true Internet connectivity instead of just a subset of it, what are they complaining about?

[volterwd]

Bandwidth Crunch?

How is it korea can provide so much more to their citizens and yet the telco's are complaining that the users are overwhelming their archaic system?

[Rod Adams]

Reasonable technical arguments

I thank CNET for taking the time to find someone from a
network service provider that can provide reasonably
understandable technical reasons for their desire to be able to
more actively manage their network.

It seems that the kinds of traffic controls mentioned are roughly
analogous to HOV lanes, special bus lanes, timed traffic lights,
cloverleaf on-ramps, and limited access highways that were
implemented to make better use of the nation's road network.

Though many of us fight road traffic congestion every day,
imagine just how much more painful it would be if the standards
of the 1940s were still in place. No one would ever get
anywhere.

The Wild West days of undifferentiated Internet traffic worked
okay in a short lived time where the capacity of the network was
much greater than the traffic demand. That time has begun to
rapidly disappear (and I am doing my share of adding to the
network load by subscribing to a large number of podcasts).

Delivering email is one challenge - delivering large audio and
even larger video files is a completely different challenge that
will require different management tools that will certainly cost
money and require a lot of intellectual capital to implement and
maintain.

We should never forget that the Internet Protocol (IP) allows us
to SHARE a common network and still have our files and
messages reach their destination. Without better management
tools, that COMMON network will become less and less reliable
as traffic increases and the difference in size between large and
small files becomes even greater.

BTW - I have never worked at a network service provider and do
not own any stock in any companies that provide that service. I
do, however, own some stock in companies that will be
providing infrastructure components as the internet expands to
supply the new stresses on its capacity. I think some of those
infrastructure companies make excellent investment choices.

[LarryLo]

You are out of your mind?

I have worked at Service providers and I have run big networks. QoS is great for private networks, but it?s not so great for public ones. Your whole Traffic analogy is flawed in that when the government sets up all these special access features, their only interest is the timely flow of people in their cars or buses. They are not favoring one person in one car to get somewhere faster than the other because they paid an extra fee, they have no conflicting interests. The Telco's on the other hand have a clear conflict of interest, in that they will be providing a competing service and hence will want that service favored. Let?s be clear this is really only going to effect the lucrative Real Time Internet Services (Voice and Video). The Telco's are looking to monopolize these two services and or profit from the success of competitors through the levying of special access charges.

Folks if we allow the Telco?s or any ISPs to modify your internet experience just to meet their revenue goals, the US internet user is in for a very unhappy future.

[Rod Adams]

Reasonable technical arguments

I thank CNET for taking the time to find someone from a
network service provider that can provide reasonably
understandable technical reasons for their desire to be able to
more actively manage their network.

It seems that the kinds of traffic controls mentioned are roughly
analogous to HOV lanes, special bus lanes, timed traffic lights,
cloverleaf on-ramps, and limited access highways that were
implemented to make better use of the nation's road network.

Though many of us fight road traffic congestion every day,
imagine just how much more painful it would be if the standards
of the 1940s were still in place. No one would ever get
anywhere.

The Wild West days of undifferentiated Internet traffic worked
okay in a short lived time where the capacity of the network was
much greater than the traffic demand. That time has begun to
rapidly disappear (and I am doing my share of adding to the
network load by subscribing to a large number of podcasts).

Delivering email is one challenge - delivering large audio and
even larger video files is a completely different challenge that
will require different management tools that will certainly cost
money and require a lot of intellectual capital to implement and
maintain.

We should never forget that the Internet Protocol (IP) allows us
to SHARE a common network and still have our files and
messages reach their destination. Without better management
tools, that COMMON network will become less and less reliable
as traffic increases and the difference in size between large and
small files becomes even greater.

BTW - I have never worked at a network service provider and do
not own any stock in any companies that provide that service. I
do, however, own some stock in companies that will be
providing infrastructure components as the internet expands to
supply the new stresses on its capacity. I think some of those
infrastructure companies make excellent investment choices.

[LarryLo]

You are out of your mind?

I have worked at Service providers and I have run big networks. QoS is great for private networks, but it?s not so great for public ones. Your whole Traffic analogy is flawed in that when the government sets up all these special access features, their only interest is the timely flow of people in their cars or buses. They are not favoring one person in one car to get somewhere faster than the other because they paid an extra fee, they have no conflicting interests. The Telco's on the other hand have a clear conflict of interest, in that they will be providing a competing service and hence will want that service favored. Let?s be clear this is really only going to effect the lucrative Real Time Internet Services (Voice and Video). The Telco's are looking to monopolize these two services and or profit from the success of competitors through the levying of special access charges.

Folks if we allow the Telco?s or any ISPs to modify your internet experience just to meet their revenue goals, the US internet user is in for a very unhappy future.